Oppression in the Vedas? I'm engaged in a debate and I could use your help.

[Durotan 0]

I'm squaring off against a guy who is claiming that the Hindu scriptures are oppressive and offensive and inherently racist. He brought forth these arguments:

 

The Taittriya Brahman is responsible for the following explanation:

 

i.2.6.7.—"The Brahmana caste is sprung from the gods; the Shudras from the Asuras."

 

iii. 2.3.9.—"This Shudra has sprung from non-existence.

 

According to the Kathaka Samhita (xxxi.2) and the Maitrayani Samhita(iv.1.3;i.8.3)

 

"A shudra should not be allowed to milk the cow whose milk is used for Agnihotra."

 

II. The Satapatha Brahmana (iii.1.1.10), the Maitrayani Samita (vii.l.l.6) and also the Panchavirnsa Brahmana (vi.l.ll) say:

 

"The Shudra must not be spoken to when performing a sacrifice and a Shudra must not be present when a sacrifice is being performed.":

 

9. Not every one may enter it, but only a Brahman, or a Râganya, or a Vaisya, for these are able to sacrifice.

3:1:1:1010. Let him not commune with every one; for he who is consecrated draws nigh to the gods, and becomes one of the deities. Now the gods do not commune with every one, but only with a Brahman, or a. Râganya, or a Vaisya; for these are able to sacrifice. Should there be occasion for him to converse with a Sûdra, let him say to one of those, 'Tell this one so and so! tell this one so and so!'

 

p. 5

This is the rule of conduct for the consecrated in such a case.

 

 

III. The Satapatha Brahmana (xiv.l.31) and the Kathaka Samhita (xi.lO) further provide that :

 

"The Shudra must not be admitted to Soma drink."

 

The Aitareya Brahmana (vii.29.4) and the Panchavirnsa Brahmana (vi.l.ll) reached the culminating point when they say:

 

"Shudra is a servant of another (and cannot be anything else)."

 

 

I was pretty dismayed by all this, being a believer that Hinduism is a tolerant tradition. I still believe it is, obviously that won't change, but I would like to know if there is a way to counter his arguments above. Is there a way to show that he has taken the texts out of context? Or perhaps if it was mistranslated? Much of these arguments I know have been taken from Dr. Ambedkar's works. But still, his thrust is that this is the reason for brahminism and caste based oppression in India, and that no matter how much the Mahabharat/Gita or any other texts tried to rectify this mess, that the inequality of society continue because of this. I would like to hope that the literal/poetic/metaphorical/allegorical meanings of these texts have been taken out of context.

 

Can anyone please help me? Thanks in advance.

[Durotan 0]

Anyone?

[shvu 1]

 

I'm squaring off against a guy who is claiming that the Hindu scriptures are oppressive and offensive and inherently racist. He brought forth these arguments:

 

That is one way of looking at them. I can say at least some of the quotes are genuine and the rest don't seem far off the mark.

 

 

I was pretty dismayed by all this, being a believer that Hinduism is a tolerant tradition.

 

Quotes from the Vedas have little or nothing to do with Hinduism. The now obsolete Vedic religion and Hinduism have very little in common. You also have to separate social concepts from religious concepts to make accurate judgements.

 

Is there a way to show that he has taken the texts out of context? Or perhaps if it was mistranslated?

No...he has not taken them out of context and they are not mistranslated.

 

Much of these arguments I know have been taken from Dr. Ambedkar's works.

They are not. Ambedkar has nothing to do with them.

 

But still, his thrust is that this is the reason for brahminism and caste based oppression in India, and that no matter how much the Mahabharat/Gita or any other texts tried to rectify this mess, that the inequality of society continue because of this.

The Mahabharata and the Gita did nothing to address social issues. That was not their objective. The Gita fully approves of the varna system and restates that a shudra's primary role is to serve the other varnas. Since the Gita is part of the MB, the MB also upholds the varna system.

 

I would like to hope that the literal/poetic/metaphorical/allegorical meanings of these texts have been taken out of context. Can anyone please help me? Thanks in advance.

No luck.

 

This is about perspective. As long as the Shudra is content with his role of service, there is no oppression. On the other hand if a kashatriya wanted to be a temple priest or a Brahmana wanted to be a commander- in-chief, that would not have happened either in a society strictly following a varna system. If yes, they were oppressed too.

 

The question is, was there ever a time when society rigidly followed this system? Probably not. Smart Shudras would have found ways to break out of the system and would moved to other varnas in various ways. There are other cases where the Sri-Vaishnava tradition liberally bestowed Brahmin-hood to several non-Brahmins on a religious affliliation basis. Another example would be of Mayura Sharma the founder of the first indigenous Kannada kingdom (Kadamba dynasty) who was a Brahmin by birth, but eventually became a kshatriya and changed his name to Mayura Verma.

 

Once again, keep social and religious concepts separate.

 

Cheers

[Durotan 0]

 

That is one way of looking at them. I can say at least some of the quotes are genuine and the rest don't seem far off the mark.

 

 

 

Quotes from the Vedas have little or nothing to do with Hinduism. The now obsolete Vedic religion and Hinduism have very little in common. You also have to separate social concepts from religious concepts to make accurate judgements.

 

Is there a way to show that he has taken the texts out of context? Or perhaps if it was mistranslated?

No...he has not taken them out of context and they are not mistranslated.

 

Much of these arguments I know have been taken from Dr. Ambedkar's works.

They are not. Ambedkar has nothing to do with them.

 

But still, his thrust is that this is the reason for brahminism and caste based oppression in India, and that no matter how much the Mahabharat/Gita or any other texts tried to rectify this mess, that the inequality of society continue because of this.

The Mahabharata and the Gita did nothing to address social issues. That was not their objective. The Gita fully approves of the varna system and restates that a shudra's primary role is to serve the other varnas. Since the Gita is part of the MB, the MB also upholds the varna system.

 

I would like to hope that the literal/poetic/metaphorical/allegorical meanings of these texts have been taken out of context. Can anyone please help me? Thanks in advance.

No luck.

 

This is about perspective. As long as the Shudra is content with his role of service, there is no oppression. On the other hand if a kashatriya wanted to be a temple priest or a Brahmana wanted to be a commander- in-chief, that would not have happened either in a society strictly following a varna system. If yes, they were oppressed too.

 

The question is, was there ever a time when society rigidly followed this system? Probably not. Smart Shudras would have found ways to break out of the system and would moved to other varnas in various ways. There are other cases where the Sri-Vaishnava tradition liberally bestowed Brahmin-hood to several non-Brahmins on a religious affliliation basis. Another example would be of Mayura Sharma the founder of the first indigenous Kannada kingdom (Kadamba dynasty) who was a Brahmin by birth, but eventually became a kshatriya and changed his name to Mayura Verma.

 

Once again, keep social and religious concepts separate.

 

Cheers

 

Actually I already got my answer from another site. Thanks. And your response is way off, and doesn't seem to have too much thought in Vedic Philosophy, nor Aryan religion, nor modern Hinduism.

[shailendra_mishra 0]

I would be very interested in the answers that you gave him. The only question I would ask him is: "Who does he think is a Brahmin" ?

Is son of a Brahmin a Brahmin ?

or

Is it somebody who devotes his life to investigate the nature of the Brahmin.

 

If he/she answers this question then I can answer and explain his issue with Taittiriya Samhita, Sathapatha Brahmana etc. Also to answer shvu - No Veda is not an obsolete religion, first off it's not a religion. It's pramanam or proof all things that we know. The Sanatana dharam has been built on top of these pramanams. This is the reason all the scriptures be it Itihas, Dharam Shastra etc, sing the praises of Veda.

 

 

 

Actually I already got my answer from another site. Thanks. And your response is way off, and doesn't seem to have too much thought in Vedic Philosophy, nor Aryan religion, nor modern Hinduism.

[miki 0]

Bramhana is supposed to mean the one who searches for truth (bramha)?

There have been reports of not only other caste people being allowed upanayanam, but also females. So it was more of division of labor, only later the caste system became rigid. Some justify that saying it is easier to practice a profession that you have seen since birth. I have read the book by Dr. Ambedkar exploring what your fellow debator said. Whether these are taken out of context or not can be explained only by someone who knows sanskrit well and had read all Vedas, Puranas and Upapuranas..since some terms mentioned by one text is explained well by some other.

[Kali_Upasaka 1]

Both Ramayana and Mahabharata were written by persons who were born Shudras. Both Valmiki and Veda Vyasa were Shudras by birth. But both of them are considered great Rishis by all Hindus.

 

This clearly indicates that one was considered a Brahmin by qualification and not by birth.

 

A reading of the story of Satyakama Jabala clearly indicates this.

 

I am not allowed to post the URL. So check up gosai web site

 

dvaita/madhvacarya/Brahmana-Vaisnava.html