One-stop shop to make India 20 times richer

If caste is NOT determined by birth, then show me the people whose caste is determined AFTER birth

I'm SICK AND TIRED OF BOGUS ARGUMENTS that in Hinduism caste is not determined by birth.

e.g. on FB, "A son of brahman is not a brahman just because he is a son of brhaman according veds if he dosnt live up to the standards of brhaman (teach/research etc)he will be considered some thing below . what you see today is a corrupted version of this concept, a son of brhaman becomes a brahman just by birth which was not the suggestion of veds …Valmiki was shudra but he rose to a level of greatest saint praised by all brahmin as rishi valmiki by virtue of his work"

Such BOGUS AND FRAUDULENT arguments are flooded in the reformist Hinduism literature. Everyone uses examples from MYTHOLOGY to suggest that caste is not really as EVIL as it is.

I ask you then – SHOW ME the MECHANISM for such determination of caste. Where in Hindu literature is the MECHANISM for caste determination AFTER birth?  And where is it used TODAY? And how?

SHOW ME THOSE "HINDUS" whose caste is NOT determined by birth.

As far as I know (and I know a lot, being born into Hinduism), caste is determined 100 PER CENT – WITHOUT EXCEPTION – by birth.

Stop these bogus fraudulent arguments, since they don't work with me.

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
14 thoughts on “If caste is NOT determined by birth, then show me the people whose caste is determined AFTER birth
  1. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    FROM FACEBOOK:

    Alok P Singh Well, indeed its true. In my opinion, Dr. Ambedkar was a brahmin not a shudra.

    There do exist many references of this sense. One of them comes from Shanti Parva, Maha Bharata.

    janmana jayate sudrah
    samskarad bhaved dvijah
    veda-pathad bhaved vipro
    brahma janatiti brahmanah

    By birth one is a sudra (lowest caste), by the purification (Karma/ Samskar) process one becomes a dvija (second birth conferring a higher status), by study of the Vedas one becomes a vipra, and one who knows Brahman is a brahmin.

    Thus all of us are born shudra, its our Karma that determines our further status.

    Sanjeev Sabhlok Sorry, Alok, I want to know WHAT process is prescribed (apart from birth) in Hindu scriptures for this testing (if that’s the word) to be done. Which Hindu group made Ambedkar a Brahmin in his lifetime? Kindly don’t waste my time with clever but meaningless statements in the Vedas.

    Alok P Singh Dear Sir, with due respect, plz see that emphasis is on conceiving the samskar, studying the Vedas & on pursuit of introduction with Brahma (internal knowledge). This is the precise process to become Brahmin which is not by birth.

    Here is another reference,

    ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप ।
    कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः ॥

    हे परंतप ! ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय और वैश्यों के तथा शूद्रों के कर्म स्वभाव से उत्पन्न गुणों द्वारा विभक्त्त किये गये हैं ।। ४१ ।।

    O Arjuna, all the different qualities of work (prescribed duties) of the various casts in society, namely the Brahmins, Kshastriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras are determined according to the their innate modes of nature (Karma). (Geeta 18.41)

    _____________________________________________________

    Which Hindu group made Ambedkar a Brahmin in his lifetime?

    Through all of his life he pursued acts of a Brahmin (in true sense).

    Why do we need ‘Pandas of Banaras’ to declare a ‘fatwa’ type statement for this? (To declare him a Brahmin)

    Sanjeev Sabhlok Alok P Singh, I have no faith in such pious statements. The truth is Ambedkar was REVILED and DETESTED as a Harijan for all his life by the Hindus. In desperation, perhaps, he converted to Buddhism. No, Alok, there has to be a PROCESS for such raising in “status”. Clearly, Hinduism is dysfunctional. Some people (e.g. you) may believe in one thing and others believe another version (based on birth). This is not sustainable, is what I’m saying.

     
  2. raghavan

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Caste-bar-on-marriages-became-entrenched-2000-years-ago-genetic-study-finds/articleshow/21724182.cms

    This might help you get a different perspective on how things were and are. Just an FYI, your ego these days has grown so big that your learning potential has gone down to a considerable extent. Whether you realize it or not, and whether you accept it or not, it is clearly visible in your works. And ofcourse, It’s upto you how you would like to take this humble suggestion.

     
  3. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Raghavan, thanks for the article and suggestions about ego. I suggest that demanding PROOF of somethign is not based on ego, but a FUNDAMENTAL necessity if we are to arrive at the truth.

    What this article shows is precisely that there has been some fake “justification”/ rationalisation that froze the caste system about 2000 years ago.

    In this context, where ALL Hindu literature promotes caste (based on the theory of transmigration), how can anyone tell me that caste is not based on birth?

    It is the CURRENT literature that counts, and the current literature is pure evil, in relation to the mandate of caste /transmigration.

    I am simply demanding proof of any METHOD that Hinduism has to change caste after birth. There is none. None one knows how to make Ambedkar a “brahmin”. So I’m merely saying don’t promote FAKE ideas. Don’t PRESERVE caste on the one hand and CHEAT by saying that caste is not determined by birth.

    Let me speak my mind. If the question hurts you – please ask why it hurts you. Is that because you are an ACTIVE participant in this fraud?

    s

     
  4. Sudeep

    Hi Sanjeev

    Not Only You , Almost everyone I know has very firm moral opinions on the subject (Caste System) . Many see in it the origin of all kinds of evils in India: from the denial of human rights to oppression; some see in it obstacles to progress and modernization and so on. As These are taught us from our Child hood from School Text book , Which i am afraid nothing but a Colonized Mind Set

    I suppose we agree that we need to understand a phenomenon before making moral judgments. With this in mind, if you try and find out what this famous caste system is, and why people either attack or defend it,

    you discover the following: no ancient book exists that tells us what the principles of the caste system are; no Indian can tell you about its structure or its organization; no scientific theory has been developed that explains how or why it continues to exist. Simply put, nobody understands what it is or how it functions. In that case, how can anyone be pro or contra the caste system?

    If we focus on how people normally describe this system and understand how easy it is to turn such a description upside down, the absurdity of the situation becomes obvious. While emphasizing that I do not attack and much less defend the caste system in what follows, let us just look at the existing descriptions and their consequences.
    (a) Caste is an antiquated social system that arose in the dim past of India. If this is true, it has survived many challenges – the onslaught of Buddhism and the Bhakti movements, the Islamic and British colonization, Indian independence, world capitalism – and might even survive ‘globalization’. It follows, then, that the caste system is a very stable social organization.

    (b) There exists no centralized authority to enforce the caste system across the length and breadth of India. In that case, it is an autonomous and decentralized organization.

    (c) All kinds of social and political regulations, whether by the British or by the Indians, have not been able to eradicate this system. If true, it means that the caste system is a self-reproducing social structure.

    (d) Caste system exists among the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Christians, the Muslims… It has also existed under different environments. This means that this system adapts itself to the environments it finds itself in.

    (e) Because new castes have come and gone over the centuries, this system must also be dynamic.

    (f) Since caste system is present in different political organizations and survives under different political regimes, it is also neutral with respect to political ideologies.

    Even though more can be said, this is enough for us. A simple redescription of what we think we know about the caste system tells us that it is an autonomous, decentralized, stable, adaptive, dynamic, self-reproducing social organization. It is also neutral with respect to political, religious and economic doctrines and environments. If indeed such a system ever existed, would it also not have been the most ideal form of social organization one could ever think of?

    How can we try to understand this odd state of affairs? The question of the immorality of the caste system became immensely important after the British came to India. Consequently, there are two interesting possibilities to choose from: one, Indians did not criticize the caste system (before the British came to India) because Indians are immoral; two, the Europeans ‘discovered’ something that simply does not exist in India, viz. the social organization that the caste system is supposed to be.

    The reason why I have ask you spent some more time on this issue is to signal in the direction of a problem, which has very far-reaching consequences. If what Europe knows about India resembles what it claims to know about the caste system, what exactly does Europe know about India or her culture? Not very much, I am afraid. Precisely at a time when, to survive in a ‘globalizing’ world, knowledge of other cultures and peoples is a necessity, it appears as though Europe knows very little about either of the two.

    Perhaps, the absence of knowledge is felt most acutely by the Europeans who invest in India. They rediscover that they are not well-equipped to do business in India. They understand neither the culture, nor the role of cultural differences in management structures and organizations. The books and articles on “culture and management” are full only of platitudes; on top of that, the newest trend in anthropology tells us that the notions of “culture” and “cultural differences” are almost of no use in understanding people.

    In other words, I am suggesting the following: Europe’s ‘knowledge’ about India will be tested during this century. What the Europeans think they know of India tells us more about Europe than it does about India. In that case, quite obviously, the earlier generations of Indian thinkers were not merely busy instituting and defending immoral practices. What else were they doing then? Why none of them are written against on this caste system , Why just we waked only after British Showed us that caste system was Wrong ???

    Sudeep

     
  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Haven’t read your full comment but there are two things that happened with the British which were not part of Islam or any other internal challenger to Hinduism.

    a) Classical liberalism. That was the biggest new thing to India – the idea of equal human liberty for all. That lens was never used in India (or the world) before classical liberalism arose as a philosophy, mainly in 17th century UK.

    b) Christianity. Although Islam and Buddhism talk about equality, they don’t really try to implement equality in the rigorous way Christianity does. Second, the culture of looking after the oppressed. That is purely Christian. No other religion has ever imbibed such a culture.

    These two combined (along with other influences), and after investigation, Raja Ram Mohun Roy rejected caste entirely. So yes, the coming of the British did play a major role in India’s self-understanding about the evil of caste.

    s

     
  6. A

    One of the Hindus who (by his own statement) determined to join the Shudra caste after being born into a Brahmin caste, is a judge who appeared on the Aamir Khaan TV show Satyamev Jayate.

    Admittedly the show is mix of showmanship and reality but you can see it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRbXXDb98fc

    Now, what does this mean… requires a lot of reflection to really really understand !

     
  7. A

    From my quick research, here is from Chanakya’s Arthashaastra, a reference to someone “losing” his caste after birth. Quote:

    ———- Arthashaastra ——
    BOOK III, CHAPTER II

    If a husband either is of bad character or is long gone abroad or has become a traitor to his king or is likely to endanger the life of his wife or has fallen from his caste or has lost virility, he may be abandoned by his wife.
    ———————————-

    What does it mean ? Chanakya was no feminist ahead of his time… but he did treat marriage as a contract. Going outside the locus of expected behaviour is good enough ground to claim violation of the contract. So caste must have defined what a person would or would not do (behaviour) much more than circumstances of birth which are forever immutable.

    Of course, caste groups of every hue were protectionist and guarded the boundaries jealously, we know that part of the story only too well.

     
  8. Ujjwall Sai Sunder Uppuluri

    this is just my position but caste in india should adopt a page from Calvinisms predestination. Eg caste is determined by the sort of life you lead and the qualities you possess. If you read vedas and want to become spiritual and lead such a life than yes irrespective of the family you were born in your nature suits that of being a brahmin and you should be inducted into the community. Or if you were a brahmin but by nature and through life you went to war or moved into business than your nature is that of the kshatrya or vashya. Essentially caste is based on the nature one possesses. This nature does not have to be pre-determined by birth. In terms of Ambdekar who makes him a brahmin. I do, I consider him to be a brahmin because he worked for the upliftment of the downtrodded, was strati forward, practiced tolerance and austerity and fit the very definition of the Brahmin from the gita chapter 18 verse 42. That is all and for me I would if I had the power do away with the caste system as being based on birth but rather be it based on nature. So yes, Id consider him to be a Brahmin and I will create a hindu group that consecrates him as such should his family or descendants want that. If you are looking for people whose caste is determined after birth look at vishwamitra from the stories king turned priest or for more modern examples look at me. By birth I am a brahmin, in life I live as a warrior as a kshatrya a leader of men or a Vaishya working in the city as an businessman and then i freely switch back to being a brahmin. Human beings change over time and this change must be accounted for. A meritocratic society is ideal. Poverty is not just restricted to one group or one people based just on caste. Yes many dalits are poor but so are many non dalit classes and divide ourselves around caste and religion. For this reason the nation will remain poor for indians do not like change and they do not want to put aside their differences and work together for the development of the nation. Till that changes india will never be a developed nation. We Indians are stupid people. Rather than helping those who are truly poor and downtrodden we help or harm people based on their birth which does not make any sense. Regards

     
  9. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    I entirely disagree. We don’t need a caste system – on whatever pretext. The whole idea is inhuman and anti-liberty.

     
  10. Parthapratim Bandyopadhyay

    The goal of the Indian Society according to our scriptures and great saints is the attainment of the four ‘purushartha’s : dharma, artha, kama and moksha. The concept of moksha was nowhere in the world except this country. Men and women following the sanatana dharma are required to follow the guidelines of our scriptures to attain these four. According to our scriptures, caste or jati is determined by birth.The word jati comes from the sanskrit root jan which implies birth. If one wants to attain all the four, he should follow the duties of the caste he is born in as determined by the scriptures.

    There is no room for hatred here.Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Chaitanya and many other great saints had strictly followed the varnashrama dharma and their love and compassion for all were infinite.

    If someone believes in the sanatana dharma, he should be guided by the scriptures. If he or she does not want to follow sanata dharma, he or she is free to ignore the caste. Its simple I think.

     
  11. Joyson Fernandes

    Can you clarify this for me? Isn’t it false propaganda by Hindu revivalists that varna is your profession and not a rigid social system? I hear this often.

    In the Vedas itself (Purushasukta), it is said that Brahmin was born from the mouth, Kshatriya from the shoulders, Vaishya from the thighs and Shudra from the feet of the creator. Brahma already created them.

    So if they were created as such beings, how can varna be flexible?

     
  12. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    There is no logic in the field of religion. Pure delusion. But if you are interested in studying other people’s delusions, by all means go to the source.

     
  13. Sanjeev Kumar

    Being born into a Hindu family is no qualification for “knowing a lot about Hinduism”. That in itself is bogus and is born by the numerous clueless Hindus in the world.

    It wasn’t that long ago in historical perspective that virtually the entire Meitei population of Manipur went from being outcastes ( outside the Varna system) to Brahmins and Kshatriyas with a few sudra (Lois). They adopted the Vaishnava sampadraya of Caitanya. Those first adopters gained a caste status. The same would have applied to the first adopters from various groups in SE Asia who adopted Hindu dharma.

    Indian obsession with jaati and varna is archaic and it doesn’t work well in the modern context. Varna arguably exists everywhere where there are humans, but many societies are not obsessed with defining it. There is nothing false about the Purushasukta in that it is a fundamental statement about a functioning society. The imposition of an existence contrary to ones nature is wrong, but it exists in ALL human society to varying degrees.

     
  14. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    You are totally wrong about there being any caste worldwide.

    Caste is the biggest falsehood since all humans are genetically the same.

    And no, you haven’t even remotely addressed my point through the example you have cited.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.