|
|
| Here is an interesting link to the BBC News website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6050408.stm
Thousands of people have been attending mass ceremonies in India at which hundreds of low-caste Hindus have been converting to Buddhism and Christianity as part of a protest against the injustices of the caste system.
By converting, they hope to escape the prejudice and discrimination they normally face.
|
|
| |
|
| i have totally wonders what is up with the cast system. having a muslim background i was discouraged from yoga cause of the rituals but that does not bother me as much as this cast system thing. were can i learn more about it? |
|
| |
|
| A very interesting phenomena.
Could someone give me a little clarification? Does the caste system rise from the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita or other Hindu texts? As described in the article, or is it some other complicated mechanism that arose from a perceived need to dominate or control people?
And Geez look at that! Again some one has gotten a post in while I've typing mine 
B
Edited by lovesmoon 2006-10-14 3:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Cyndi can clarify.
PM her.  |
|
| |
|
| foekus - 2006-10-14 3:03 PM
i have totally wonders what is up with the cast system. having a muslim background i was discouraged from yoga cause of the rituals but that does not bother me as much as this cast system thing. were can i learn more about it?
Have you read the Qu'ran? I did.
Would you treat me differently if you thought I was an infidel as opposed to a Muslim?
or a Shi'ite or a Sunni or a Wahhabi?
Edited by SCThornley 2006-10-14 3:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
| lovesmoon - 2006-10-14 3:17 PM
A very interesting phenomena.
Could someone give me a little clarification? Does the caste system rise from the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita or other Hindu texts? As described in the article, or is it some other complicated mechanism that arose from a perceived need to dominate or control people?
The caste system as I understand it basically breaks Hindu society into a number of different roles. There are the workers, the priests, the warriors/leaders, and some others I'm forgetting. Anyway, basically you were born into whatever role it was, and pretty much stayed that way for life.
This is not all the different from the way it works in a number of societies, but in Hindu society it's a bit more rigid than others. For example, my grandfather repaired electrical engines, my father taught electrical engineering, I work with computers. You'll see similar things with families of musicians, etc. The big difference, is that most societies allow some degree of social mobility, or shifting roles. I also believe that it's consider to be part of your karma that you are born into certain families, and thus certain roles, making it very very difficult to transition, because then not only are you going against society, but also your very belief system.
There's a decent article on it in the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system |
|
| |
|
| Thank you Greenjell-o but I have a pretty good idea of how the caste system works and was just wondering about the source. The Wikipedia article was helpful. But I am still curious about the pervasiveness of the system. Is there such a strong belief in Hinduism, that the legend has become rigidified? Especially considering that there used to be so many small kingdoms. Or is there an aspect of political power mongering that has kept it so strong for so long?
Now that I look at it I can imagine some impassioned arguments for and against both religious devotion and pure power politics.
And it may just be a chicken and egg kind of thing. 
B |
|
| |
|
| This might seem a little out of place but I watched a really interesting documentary on wolves (spanning over the course of several years) and learned they have a super strict hierarchy system. No one eats before the Alpha male. The most interesting character to me was the Omega male in this particular pack. He was the Alpaha's brother and even bigger in size than the Alpha. All the other males wolves took their aggression out on the Omega. Plus, the Omega had to babysit the wolf puppies when the others went out. There are also an Alpha and an Omega female in each wolk pack.
When this pack was physically removed from their territory (in cages) by the reaserchers, the Omega was scared and wouldn't come out of his opened cage. All the other wolves were running away from the cages. The only wolf that turned around and gently coaxed the Omega to get out of the cage was the Alpha wolf.
Seems like in every situation that invloves more than one living thing there's going to be a hierarchy. Not that's it's fair or anything.... |
|
| |
|
| jonnie - 2006-10-14 2:49 PM
Here is an interesting link to the BBC News website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6050408.stm
Thousands of people have been attending mass ceremonies in India at which hundreds of low-caste Hindus have been converting to Buddhism and Christianity as part of a protest against the injustices of the caste system.
By converting, they hope to escape the prejudice and discrimination they normally face.
But, let us not get into a lengthy debate. Very interesting. Good question! Low Caste Hindus converting to Buddhism and Christianity? And, BBC interested in reporting this as against Indian Newspapers or Washington Postt, or New York Times or Wall Street Journal (which also reports Yoga quite frequently now a days!)!
Hindu Caste System originates in a division of a particular human being in order for his/her role in the life (NOT society) based upon guna (that is the properties) and karma (based on actions he/she is displaying). In that system, the final purpose of human life is Moksha, that is the Spiritual Liberation, and NOT making proftis, attracting people, name and fame. gunakarma vibhaagashhaH.. means divided using guna and karma. In this way, those who are focussed in that purpose fully are called Brahmins and they spend their time in contemplation. Those who are Kshatriyas, protect the people and at the same time respect Brahmins and also prepare to become Brahmins. And, the lowest category Shoodra who are supposed to be full of Tamas guna (not today's caste shoodra, but what is meant by original system) serve the society and then prepare themselves to become Brahmins. Thus, the same person can be one or all in his/her life.
Later, due to the upper hand, Brahmins empowered themselves in a social way, exactly similar to any other society whether in Italy due to Church System, or in Egypt due to xxxx, or in USA due to money, or in South Africa due to yyy. And, this is called Caste System.
Now, as for solution, I offer some thoughts to ponder on, not my opinions, but thoughts:
1. Black Africans are treated as slaves in one place by Whites. So, to end this problem, they are invited by Indians to call themselves Indians and not Blacks or Africans. So, once they are Indians, they will not be Africans, even if they are black. So, slavery problem is solved.
2. Jewish people in Germany are torchured by Germans as they are called Jews. So, Jews now call themselves Portugese and go on speaking Portugese language and forget that they were Jewish. So, now they will not be mistreated as Jews.
3. My close friend hates her parents because she thinks that they are mistreating her. I tell her : do no tworry, just imagine that I am your parent and forget all about your parents as your parents. They are just another being. Her problem is solved. I give her a place to live and he she goes.
4. The solution to caste system is in solving the caste system problem and not removing the caste system or changing the caste. Solution to African problem is not making them Indians, but keeping them AFrican and removing the slavery. Solution to Jewish torchure is stopping the torchure, and removing the Jewish heritage. If I can make my friend in friends with her parents, I would do a better job than *******izing her.
Peace and Joy
|
|
| |
|
| *Fifi* - 2006-10-14 8:14 PM
Seems like in every situation that invloves more than one living thing there's going to be a hierarchy. Not that's it's fair or anything....
Sure, problem with the caste system is stratification. When you're king (alpha male) because you daddy's daddy's daddy'd daddy's daddy was king, you might or might not be the most fit for leading. In the case of the wolves I think you'd find they re-evaluated the situation fairly regularly. |
|
| |
|
| neel did a good job with the caste system question. caste system has more to do with social roles than with social value--and it's important to note that. when something becomes institutionalized--that is there's a connection between social role and value--is when we have a problem.
this is, btw, one of the issues within feminism. women's 'work' was devalued, and therefore women were devalued. in striving to 'revalue' women as social equals to men, feminism sought to have women doing 'men's work' (or the roles typically done by men)--the problem is that they never revalued 'women's work' as being equally valuable to 'men's work.' we have an issue of certain social roles having less social value, regardless of who does this work. fourth-wave feminism seeks to revalue 'women's work' so that all genders/sexes can have access to the equal value in regards to their social role.
in essence, the hindu system was concieved the same. All 'castes' had their own roles--their roles held equal social value. each part was necessary for the society to run--just as each phase of life has a role, and each phase of life has equal value because of that role.
i've read the qu'ran, and there's no lack of egalitarianism in regard to 'non-muslims' of various sorts. in fact, it's a very egalitarian religion (as is christianity and judaism--the brothers of islam).here's a link: http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp.
|
|
| |
|
| zoebird - 2006-10-15 9:43 AM
i've read the qu'ran, and there's no lack of egalitarianism in regard to 'non-muslims' of various sorts. in fact, it's a very egalitarian religion (as is christianity and judaism--the brothers of islam).here's a link: http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp.
you probably should read it again.
Egalitarianism is for Muslims within the Islamic state according to Mohammed's Qur'an.
According to the Qu'ran that I read, and I got through the entire Qu'ran, not just the first part where everything is love and beauty and all this and all that.....
Different tax laws apply to non-Muslims
Different justice applies to non-Muslims
Different moral decision making is approved for dealing with Muslims versus non-Muslims
The Glorious Qur'an
text and explanatory translation by
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall
From the Translator's Foreword
"THE aim of this work is to present to English readers what Muslims the world over hold to be the meaning of the words of the Qur'an and the nature of that Book, in not unworthy language and concisely, with a view to the requirements of the English Muslims. It may be reasonably claimed that no Holy Scripture can be fairly presented by one who disbelieves its inspiration and its message; and this is the first English translation of the Qur'an by an Englishman who is a Muslim. Some of the translations include commentation offensive to Muslims, and almost all employ a style of language which Muslims at once recognize as unworthy. The Qur'an cannot be translated. That is the belief of the traditional Sheykhs and the view of the present writer. The Book is here rendered almost literally and every effort has been made to choose befitting language. But the result is not the Glorious Qur'an, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy. It is only an attempt to present the meaning of the Qur'an--and peradventure something of the charm--in English. It can never take the place of the Qur'an in Arabic, nor is it meant to do so.
Before publication the work has been scrutinised word by word and thoroughly revised in Egypt with the help of one whose mother-tongue is Arabic, who has studied the Qur'an and who knows English; and when difficulties were encountered the translator had recourse to perhaps the greatest living authority on the subject. Every care has thus been taken to avoid unwarrantable renderings. On the one or two occasions where there is departure from the traditional interpretation, the traditional rendering will be found in a footnote.
The translator's thanks are due to Lord Lloyd for an introduction of great use in Egypt; to Dr. F. Krenkow for supplying him with old meanings of Arabic words not to be found in dictionaries; to Muhammad Ahmad Al-Ghamrawi Bey of the Cairo College of Medicine for his invaluable and patient help with the revision of manuscript, a work shich occupied three months; to the Sheykh Mustafa Al-Maraghi, former Rector of Al-Azhar University, for his advice and guidance in the revision; and to His Excellency Fuad Bey Salim Al-Hijazi, by whose effort such revision was made possible"
I am not part of any religion that will divide humanity.
My teacher Tina was blessed enough to support this foundation, and I thank her here.
Sectarian violence did not start with Islam and jihad did not start in the 20th or 21st century.
Read the Qur'an, read it good and come away with a clear view of all of it, not just the good parts.
Now the disclaimer---substitute any other religion for Islam and you can say the same thing about it. All things have good and bad within them and we should not ignore the bad and pretend that it isn't there, it is.
http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/quraan/pickthall.asp
Edited by SCThornley 2006-10-15 11:26 AM
|
|
| |
|
| SCT:
the false assumptions that you assert are that: 1. i didn't read the whole quran and 2. even if i did, i didn't understand it.
I have read several english translations of the quran--written for muslim and sufi audiences. i have also spent some time in mosques (muslim and sufi) hearing various talks including inter-religious panels discussing these very issues.
in law school, i learned how to read legal texts and also the relevant case law related which delinates how these laws are applied in different contexts. Many religious scriptures have these legal (theocratic) elements--and they have supporting books that describe the laws in more detail and in various context. This is similar to the jewish canon of mosaic law and the talmud (which i have also read and studied).
it is also worth pointing out that most people--regardless of their religion--recognize the differences and applications of 'the law' in regards to theocratic vs theological aspect.
Different tax laws apply to non-Muslims
yes. non muslims had to pay more in taxes than nonmuslims, typically. this was common regardless of who was ruling and in which location. this follows the legal mores of the time and shouldn't be looked at under the same standard that we believe today.
This is because there are two aspects to many of these things: theocratic vs theological. Theocratic deals with government, and most muslim nations today do not function under theocracies (there are a few exceptions, no?) thus, this tax structure is constructively not utilized in modern muslim states, many of which have adopted more western-styled governance.
The theological aspect of this is contested or completely ignored as theologically irrelevant due to the question of how taxes are theologically relevant for salvation.
Different justice applies to non-Muslims
yes, muslims were held to a stricter legal system than nonmuslims. only muslims must uphold muslim law, there is a 'lower standard' of accountability for non-muslims. the same is true of the hebrew mosaic/noahtic law.
this does have two different aspects as well: the theocratic aspect vs the theological aspect. from a theocratic stand point, the point is largely moot. in a theocracy, though, the non-muslim is given the 'benefit of the doubt' in regards to islamic law. theologically speaking, this points to a live-and-let-live or live-and-forgive stratedgy--common in judaism--whereby "we muslims" follow these laws because it is for the glory of God to live this way, but those "non-muslims" needn't follow the law the same, because they are not bound to the same God, and therefore the same theology.
islam does believe that it's theology is paramount; but few religions do not believe this.
Different moral decision making is approved for dealing with Muslims versus non-Muslims
yes, this comes out of the previous construct. if the standard of the law is lower, then so also is how they determine a construct similar to "mens rea" or the state of the mind of the individual committing a crime. a non-muslim is considered per se a 'less morally capable' individual, and therefore cannot be held to the same standards (referential tot he previous statement), and their mental capacity for following and understanding their own, separate standard of the law must be considered.
reapply theocracy vs theology again--same thing applies. the moral approach that one takes with a muslim (one of the same religion) is more strict than with a nonmuslim. It is assumed that a nonmuslim 'doesn't know any better'--just as a guest may not know the rules of a house--and therefore they are allowed more room.
Could be i do know a few things now and again.
Edited by zoebird 2006-10-15 2:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
| zoebird - 2006-10-15 2:06 PM
SCT:
the false assumptions that you assert are that: 1. i didn't read the whole quran and 2. even if i did, i didn't understand it.
you're welcome
But, I never was trying to imply you did not comprehend or understand anything in the Qur'an, if that is how you took it then I appologize to your greater humanity.
There are real scriptual reasons why jihad exists like it does in the modern age and no amount of defense of Islam is going to rewrite the Qur'an.
Edited by SCThornley 2006-10-15 3:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
| ZB,
honestly, I think from what you've written we are in agreement, ultimately.
However, I think that you may believe that Muslims are of a higher order than non-Muslims and this is where I think our agreement shall depart.
Sectarian division is not appropriate in a forward moving momentum that shall include the whole of humanity.
Islam has its' defenders and detractors as does any organized religion/political movement, but Islam is a religion/political movement with a lot of discrimination.
I wish no ill will towards these peoples however their very foundation attracts trouble for them from the start.
Edited by SCThornley 2006-10-15 3:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I just think you should read it again with a different perspective, with a paradigm shift.
Maybe, read it as a non-Muslim, consider yourself an infidel while you read it.
Edited by SCThornley 2006-10-15 3:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Let's not forget that African slaves were captured and sold by other Africans. And, there were more Catholics than Jews murderd in concentration camps. See what's in our minds?
Re Muslims: I don't suppose anyone here listens to Michael Savage? He had an incredibly well educated and cosmopolitian Muslim man on his program that talked about an essay he wrote about the Fundie Muslims today. His assertion is that the majority of them are practically illerate (like the hicks in the US that interpret the Old Testament literally and as the only way to live). He says they're stuck in the 7th Century. I belive the essay as well as the name of the (Muslim) author is on Michael Savage's website.
Is the Hindu Caste system stuck in the 7th Century? What's good about the US inparticular is that anyone can go to school, drop out of school and return to school years later. You can change your career 10 times if you want. Education is the way to freedom!
But, Muslim and Hindu culture have way more family cohesion than Western culture. Freedom, like capitalism, needs to be reigned in from time to time. Which leads me to the question: has anyone read "Running with Scissors"? Talk about unbridled freedom! |
|
| |
|
| *Fifi* - 2006-10-15 3:48 PM
But, Muslim and Hindu culture have way more family cohesion than Western culture. Freedom, like capitalism, needs to be reigned in from time to time. Which leads me to the question: has anyone read "Running with Scissors"? Talk about unbridled freedom!
Please, you leave me wanting more, continue this and bring light...
I've never read it, no.  |
|
| |
|
| SCT:
first, you didn't imply it; you directly said it. If you read your post, the first is overt, deductive reasoning with the statement, 'you should read it again.' it also implies that i didnt 'get' it the first time. the second is overt from an inductive perspective--you assert that you know because you read the whole thing, etc, and thus I would know had i read the whole thing. So, you can't put 'inference' on me when you directly said it. 
However, I think that you may believe that Muslims are of a higher order than non-Muslims and this is where I think our agreement shall depart.
no, i do not think that muslims are of any higher order than any other person or religious group. rather, that i understand the form of muslim law, theocraticly and theologically, and how it applies contextually then and now.
Sectarian division is not appropriate in a forward moving momentum that shall include the whole of humanity.
which is the whole point of promoting dialogue, rather than accusations. your statements about the quran and islam in this stream indicate through tone and implication that islam is not a valid or good religion, that it is per se problematic, and therefore suspect. This is sectarian division of muslims from nonmuslims.
unity focuses on commonalities and acceptance of differences. one must understand the differences and their importance, and their underlying meaning in order to find commonality. this commonality will lead to unity, which will drive the forward momentum.
What you are accusing islam of doing or being, you are doing or being yourself through 'impeachment' or 'accusation' of islam.
Islam has its' defenders and detractors as does any organized religion/political movement, but Islam is a religion/political movement with a lot of discrimination.
discrimination is not the basis of islam. Peace is the basis of islam.
whatever differences in treatment of non-muslims is functionally in deference to those who are non-muslims but would live with muslims peacefully. it is those who would not live with them peacefully, but would attack them for being muslim who should not be tolerated according to the quran.
this basic ideology is one of our current fundamental principles in social and political movement--regardless of islam. it functions under 'self defense' and 'just war' constructs that exist in most religious and social constructs. For the most part, the idea is 'live and let live' but as cyndi so brilliantly posted about having guns--if someone's going to try and take her lifestyle away, she's going to break out her shot guns. This is one of the founding principles in american thought--which supports the second amendment and all it's militia aspects.
I wish no ill will towards these peoples however their very foundation attracts trouble for them from the start.
then you must impeach the american sentiment as well. And many others. Truth be told, this aspect is problematic, but it is also pragmatic in some instances. |
|
| |
|
| ZB,
Yeah, I still think you need to re-read the Qur'an.
You got me pinned, but really I think all religion is suspect .
I'm in no position to impeach anything, I have my flaws just like the next goober living in suburban USA, paying his taxes, eating bacon and lime sherbet, playing video games and doing my yogasana on a daily basis for pain relief.
hey, check my avatar-- Coexist -- get it?
Edited by SCThornley 2006-10-15 4:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I just think you should read it again with a different perspective, with a paradigm shift.
Maybe, read it as a non-Muslim, consider yourself an infidel while you read it.
first, i am a non-muslim, so i cannot read it as a muslim would. For the most part, i have to 'translate' it to my own understandings based on comparative philosophy and religion. though again your stating that i'm incapable of truly understanding what i'm reading, or reading it from a variety of perspectives.
second, an 'infidel' is two things by definition in the text (assuming that is the translated word). in the first incidence it is a friend who then betrays you to your enemies. This person could be muslim or non-muslim. the second context of infidel is one who is unreliable or criminal person. this could be a muslim or nonmuslim as well. Muslims are held to one standard (more harsh) than nonmuslims (less harsh).
in every system of governance, there is a system called the 'justice system.' whether or not this system is actually just is largely up to question, but nevertheless, it is part and parcel to governance. it is necessary. theocratic societies are no less subject to this. And we must recognize that at the time of the development and rise of islam, what existed but theocratic governance?
understanding this context and it's modern comparatives is important. The american system of justice has harsh penalties for individuals who murder people, rob banks, steal cars. Not all of them are death or maiming--but even these are considered inappropriate in modern muslim courts, in countries that are predominantly muslim but not theocratic.
understanding that these ancient texts have a system of governnance that has two components--theocratic and theological--it is easy enough to parcel out that which is theocratic, and that which is theological. what is often written is not the theological underpinning but rather the theocratic application. understanding the theological underpinnings of a theocratic application is the key to applying islam in modern contexts of liberal, western governance as well as individual spiritual application.
Surely, you have no trouble with the american justice system determining that an individual who rapes and murders a woman recieves the death penalty? or, at the very least a life time in prison? The american justice system functions under many of the same processes--both morally and functionally--as islam.
it's just that we often fail to see it due to our own misreadings. |
|
| |
|
| i don't find religion as suspect as i find individual practitioners. religions house ideas--and ideas in and of themselves can't hurt anyone. it's what people do with those ideas that can harm other people.
Unity and coexistance can only work through finding commonality and understanding differences. The attempt to cast everything or something as 'evil' or 'inherently bad' won't lead to coexistance or unity.
This does not mean that one can't be critical of a religion or a group within a certain religion. I'm certianly critical of many religious groups--including those with whom i participate actively.
fifi's writing about the Savage has force. ignorance breeds a lot of trouble. islam isn't the only religion struggling with fundamentalism and the trouble that it breeds. It's one thing to be critical of this; it's entirely another to attach this small group as representative of the whole. |
|
| |
|
| zoebird - 2006-10-15 4:16 PM
Surely, you have no trouble with the american justice system determining that an individual who rapes and murders a woman recieves the death penalty? or, at the very least a life time in prison? The american justice system functions under many of the same processes--both morally and functionally--as islam.
it's just that we often fail to see it due to our own misreadings.
Nope, I have trouble with it.
In many ways it is a justice based on the representation you can afford.
Islam has just as much about it that I have 'trouble' with, my misreadings or history or current events or whatever.
|
|
| |
|
| zoebird - 2006-10-15 4:22 PM It's one thing to be critical of this; it's entirely another to attach this small group as representative of the whole.
In a ball game the commentator normally talks about who's holding the ball. |
|
| |
|
| Steve Thornley, you're in luck! "Running with Scissors" is about to make its mainstream movie debut this month.
RwS is a memoir by Augusten Burroughs who's utterly dysfuntional, divorced mother gave him up for adoption to her shrink when Augusten was 12. The shrink's family makes the Addams family seem like the Waltons. The shrink, Dr. Finch, belives children are capable of making their own life decisions when they turn 13 years old. Oh, Dr. Finch also has some of his psychiatric patients living in his home. I'll leave the rest for you to uncover. (warning: there is pedofilia in the novel) The novel is NOT mostly sad; it's mostly gross. It's a page-turner. If you read it, I'd be interested in your point of view (we'll start another thread for that) |
|
| |
Hindu Caste System
