Racism and spiritual understanding.

[theist]

Can one be a racist and still be on the spiritual platform?Seems like a contradiction to me.

 

Myself being in a White body I am forced to avoid Black neighborhods because of the potential violence that would surely come my way.Someone in a Black body may feel nervous in certain White neighborhoods etc.

 

This seems to be the way of life in the material world.So we try to work on two tracks.Seeing the same spiritual nature in all, while not being so stupid as to try and hug a tiger or kiss a cobra.

 

What I find most disturbing is the undercurrent of racism that is existing in the world of Krsna conscious practice.

 

Black devotees are often looked down on.Now the fashion seems to be to hate the Jews."Weren't many of Prabhupada's leading disciples Jewish?Isn't that the reason that they tried to take over the movement, because of their being Jews?"etc.

 

How do those in Indian bodies feel I wonder?Do you look down on those who are of a different race or born in different lands outside of India?Do you feel looked down on for some reason?

 

There is also a certain perception that Indian bodied devotees,especially congregational members, can never quite catch the spirit of Prabhupada due to over-identifying with 'hodge-podge' Hindu concepts."But they do contribute to the Temple nicely so we tolerate it."

 

Is it just me hallucinating or do these problems really exst in the shadows?

 

Perhaps if we shine the light on the shadows we will know if something is really there or if the imagination was just playing tricks.

 

Please help me understand this.

 

Hare Krsna

 

 

[Gauracandra]

Good topic Theist. Here is my thinking. "Racism" is not always intentional nor malevolent. And I think it is important to qualify that being discriminatory, or having some reservations about certain aspects of various races I don't think it necessarily racist. Its just the way people approach life, and it is not meant in an antagonistic manner.

 

Here is an example of what I mean. I'm white. Now being a westerner I have been to Indian's homes and handle myself in a particular manner. I'm always very to the point. If they need something - "What do you need?Ok, here is how to fix the problem.Bye". I just cut to the chase and get to the point.

 

Now to Indians they might think I'm being rude. But really I'm not. Indians tend to (from my vantage point) want to sit around and chit chat, while I just want to get in, do my thing, and get out. But they aren't racist if they think "Westerners are really unfriendly and rude." They just see it differently.

 

At the same time I will say that my view is that Indians are absolutely ATROCIOUS when it comes to time. I'm not a racist for saying this, it is simply a fact I've come to accept as an absolute reality with regard to Indians. Culturally Indians just seem to have a different sense of time. It has happened to me many times where an Indian friend will invite me for dinner at 7 pm. When I arrive they haven't even started cooking, and dinner isn't served until like 10 at night. Meanwhile they will sit around and socialize for 3 hours. Me, when you say 7 pm is dinner I expect the food on the plate and ready to eat /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif I once took an Indian lady to the store and she assured me it would only take 15-20 minutes. Three hours later we leave (not sure if this was an Indian thing or a woman thing /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif ).

 

So different groups have different notions of time, space, etc... Unless we understand these differences we might view others negatively - or some would say as racist. I've made adjustments. Now when Indian friends of mine invite me to eat at 7 pm, I don't arrive until 9:30 /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[theist]

"Now when Indian friends of mine invite me to eat at 7 pm, I don't arrive until 9:30"

 

I can hear Prabhupada's deep voice saying,"Yes...This is intelligence."

 

I see what you are saying about cultural differences, and I except that.But I also sense something else, something dark.(Not meant a racial slur /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif )

 

I have heard this blame the Jews thing concerning Prabhupada's math being snatched by "The Jews"."Wasn't Robert Grant a Jew?"etc.

 

Hard for me to define.

[Avinash]

not sure if this was an Indian thing or a woman thing

 

Hey, it must be woman thing. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[atma]

We're racist in a way that we put people of different color or country tied together. Indians are certain way, blacks are like that, jews, oh my God, whites feel superior, etc. Even between the races and countries you heard comments about skin color, between blacks they discriminate if they are light brown or really dark and they try to "bleach" the line. In India so many times I heard bengalis talking about the "blacks" from South India, or the intelligence of the Sardars, lack of manners of Marwaris, laziness of Bengalis...and it goes on in the devotee world too because we bring with us our conditioning.

 

We have problems in Mayapur between foreigners and locals devotees, the French don't like Italians and we put all the Russians in the same group. We brand the individuals from where they come from or their skin. Put all in the same sack.

 

In my work I see it all the time, the new manager is hiring only people of her race and everybody else is resenting it. When I deal with costumers I behave different with people depending on race because my conditioning tells me that with certain people I have to agree inmediately otherwise they may create a scandal. When I hear the assistant manager calling for "security to scan all areas" through the speaker I know without looking that he saw 2 or more black men entering the store and because he is racist he thinks all the blacks steal.

 

I'm trying to raise my kids differently and they're much better than me in that aspect because in the devotee world you have the chance to mix with so many different races and countries from very little and you teach them we're all spirit souls.

 

My mom always told me that she can tolerate anything from me except a black man (and in my country are hardly blacks because slavery was almost non-existent there). She is really racist and it took me a while to shake off that from me. My friends are Indians, Greeks, Latinos,and my black friend from Brazil, oh yeah some whites too.

 

And Indians HAVE a problem with time, they relax too much, they eat very late and they're very racist. To be FAIR is the max there. Many devotees there told me that I won't have problem with my daughters'marriage because they look white and I won't have to give dowry, Marwaris would pay me to married them to their sons!

I saw and heard indian devotees lamenting for the color of their daughter's skin. Too black, means more dowry, unless you get a white idealistic sincere boy that won't care about color and dowry.

 

Jews got a very bad reputation and we brand all of them together. I guess they're intelligent so many of them joined the movement and went up the ladder so fast, many of them fell badly too. I got a few Jewish friends in the movement and they're quite nice, the women a little histerical and demanding but that can apply to most of the women /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

 

Until we become pure and see everybody as part and parcel of the Lord we'll make distinctions. Sad but true in the devotee world.

 

[atma]

About time it's an Indian thing. Indian men are as bad with time as Indian women. No questions about it.

[Guest guest]

Racism is Vedic

 

 

In Vedic society (ie the noun "Vedic" - not 'vedic' - adjectie = knowledge) Blacks are sudras, vaishas are black-brown, ksatriyas are brown, and Brahmanas are Whits ("sukla")

 

 

 

 

 

[bhaktajoy]

My dear Guest where do you get your information?People have become foolish in India that's the problem.Conditioned by powerful maya they do not understand.Although there are many brahman families they are no better than shudras.Indians are very racist people.Why?Because they have lost all knowledge due to misused intelligence.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

We find that many of the brahmanas of South India have the darkest skin, and this has been the case for thousands of years (we can see descriptions in various biographies). Color has nothing to do with caste.

 

In ancient times we find some brahminical sages such as Vyasa were also black.

 

Sometimes colors can be used to describe things without the object possessing that color. The modes of nature are also described as yellow, red, blue, but they have no actual colors. The colors represent diifferent qualities and dont refer to visible external color. Even in the west black and white are used to identify good and bad through their connection to light and darkness.

[Guest guest]

 

According to the so called standards

of "vedic" colour assignation,

Krishna who was blackish,would be a sudra.

Balarama who was whitish would be a brahmana.

 

Wrong on both accounts.

 

Ignorance of reality is the basis for judging people on the basis of race,or colour

shade.

 

Hitler,Charles manson,and most serial kilers are white.

 

Should we be prejudiced aginst white people because of it ?

 

The Italian mafia commit many atrocities,should we be prejudiced against Italians ?

 

The ignorant judge according to their limited intellect.

The enlightened see the reality.

Concerning "Jews",Iskcon leadership was

comprised of many ex-jews,also they were white,also they were men,also they spoke english.

Why should the ignorant complain about a jewish conspiracy ?

What about a conspiracy of white male english speaking devotees ?

 

The agenda of the anti jew is shown,due to some ignorant conception he is bewildered

into seeing only material prejudiced reasons

for the transcendental path of Mahaprabhu's movement.

[karthik_v]

Theist prabhuji,

 

First of all, thanks for starting a nice thread.

 

Can one be a racist and still be on the spiritual platform?Seems like a contradiction to me.

 

I don't believe that those acrayas who are spiritually liberated would have ever been a racist. When you look at great saints like Sankara, Ramanua, Srila Prabhupad or even Caitanya Mahaprabhu, they were all towering personalities spiritually, but were almost powerless in the material sense. They didn't have the support of the kings, didn't possess money and yet they embraced the weakest person, IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS BIRTH, if he was even a bit inclined spiritually. But an ordinary aspiring devotee can possibly be a racist as he can be having other vices too.

 

But in most cases, our prejudices are due to the lack of familiarity with another culture. Mostly, we are just toursists or window shoppers who never try to understand another culture in depth. Naturally, prejudices surface. A white friend of mine from New Mexico once said that in rural New Mexico the lifestyle is very different from what we see in Seattle. He said that family bondages are much stronger there than you see in Seattle. I might have never known about this had I not interacted with him.

 

How do those in Indian bodies feel I wonder?Do you look down on those who are of a different race or born in different lands outside of India?

 

A few decades ago, they would have certainly done so. Now, with exposure their mindset is changing. Even then, it is still prevelant. For most Indians, the west is what they see in Hollywood movies. So, even when they come across a nice devotee, a bit of suspicion still remains. In India, collective thinkng takes precedence over individuality. So, any deviation from the norm is looked down upon. Most traditional Indians won't sip the glass while drinking water. They kind of hold it high over their lips and pour the water down. Now, you may be a very nice western devotee, but if you sip the glass or touch food with your left hand the first reaction will be: "Oh, how come you haven't learnt these basics? You may not be good religiously too". Now, I am not being critical of Indians either. That is how societies where families form a cohesive unit think.

 

Gauracandra prabhuji,

 

Now to Indians they might think I'm being rude. But really I'm not. Indians tend to (from my vantage point) want to sit around and chit chat, while I just want to get in, do my thing, and get out. But they aren't racist if they think "Westerners are really unfriendly and rude." They just see it differently.

 

You are correct. When somebody is businesslike or reserved, he is perceived as being rude and selfish. Indians take liberties and expect you to do the same. For example, if you stay with an Indian family, if you take the liberty of advising their son who is younger than you, on his studies, they like it. And be prepared when someone older lectures you on anything. To an American kid, the very thought that some stranger would chastise him for not doing well in high school mathematics would be a shock. There it means that you really care.

 

At the same time I will say that my view is that Indians are absolutely ATROCIOUS when it comes to time.

 

Indians believe that time is eternal /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

 

Atmaji,

 

And Indians HAVE a problem with time, they relax too much, they eat very late and they're very racist. To be FAIR is the max there. Many devotees there told me that I won't have problem with my daughters'marriage because they look white and I won't have to give dowry, Marwaris would pay me to married them to their sons!

I saw and heard indian devotees lamenting for the color of their daughter's skin. Too black, means more dowry, unless you get a white idealistic sincere boy that won't care about color and dowry.

 

You are correct. It is very sad that modern Indians are so obsessed with skin colour. If we look at older literature, this hardly mattered. I would think that this mindset started creeping in during the colonial days. The Europeans thought that the white skin was superior and it rubbed it on their colonial subjects. Tyrants like Malik Kafur and Xavier [they call him a saint] looked down upon dark skinned people. Since they were successful, their notions took deep roots in India.

 

J N Das prabhuji,

 

We find that many of the brahmanas of South India have the darkest skin, and this has been the case for thousands of years (we can see descriptions in various biographies). Color has nothing to do with caste.

 

Very ture. Not only in the south, even in Bihar or Bengal you will find that most Brahmins are of a dark complexion. Interestingly, many tribals, such as the ones in Nilgiris, in Tamilnadu are very fair skinned.

[Gauracandra]

Our brains are setup to naturally create stereotypes as a time savings technique. These stereotypes actually have I believe very often a strong basis in reality. The problem occurs when we don't allow room for the exceptions for the stereotypes. Different groups behave in different manners. To deny this is to deny what makes cultures unique and different. And what makes them unique and different is not always positive and good.

 

Now the question becomes is discrimination always bad? I think in some cases it acts as a cultural mechanism to enforce societal norms. For instance, today it is illegal to not rent to a man and woman who aren't married. But if this form of discrimination was allowed, then you would see flow through the culture a moral strictness. I think the government, in trying to regulate relationships between people, has actually taken away many natural forms of discrimination that keep society in line. Somewhat of a side issue, but I thought I'd contribute that...

[Avinash]

It is true that Indians are very lax about time (though not always). But Gauracandra ji has given the example of inviting somebody for dinner at a certain time and giving him dinner to eat at much latter time. I think that it is an accepted custom in India that when somebody is invited for dinner, then the talk that is done to him in order to socialize is also a part of "dinner" even though the dictionary meaning of the word "dinner" does not include it. What do you think?

[theist]

Different groups do act differently.Taking myself as an example, I have picked up a real dislike for American Blacks after I lived for a few years in Oakland Ca., a mostly Black city.It was hell.Still is.There is something in Black culture that really turns me off.This is of course a generalzation.

 

It is when this kind of feeling gets carried into the realm of the association of aspiring bhaktas that the problem becomes extra serious.And I think it has and is growing.

 

The posts on the Jews that regularly show up here are a case in point.

 

Without wanting to sound too much like someone into pop psychology I think the posters need to join all the rest of us in some serious introspection on this issue, instead of continually trying to justify the bad feelings with some old speculations on WW2 atrocities and even current conspiracy theories, we need to find their real source.

 

Atrocities in kali-yuga abound.Why the narrow focus on one group?I don't get it.

 

 

[tsaneladi]

I think that being racist is a part of the Kali age. It is not a part of spiritual life, but something to contend with on the path to pure KC.

[Guest guest]

[Guest guest]

"My dear Guest where do you get your information?People have become foolish in India that's the problem.Conditioned by powerful maya they do not understand.Although there are many brahman families they are no better than shudras.Indians are very racist people.Why?Because they have lost all knowledge due to misused intelligence. " (Bhaktijoy)

 

 

Answer

 

The Rig Veda

[Guest guest]

"In ancient times we find some brahminical sages such as Vyasa were also black." (Jndas)

 

Veda Vyasa was not born in al brahminical family.

 

[karthik_v]

Guest,

 

Bhaktijoy asked:

 

"My dear Guest where do you get your information?People have become foolish in India that's the problem.Conditioned by powerful maya they do not understand.Although there are many brahman families they are no better than shudras.Indians are very racist people.Why?Because they have lost all knowledge due to misused intelligence. "

 

You replied:

 

The Rig Veda

 

My rejoinder:

 

Can you please quote from Rk veda to support your claim? Please remember that this is a serious discussion forum and everything needs to be backed up with references. Every participant is expected to display a deep understanding of what he is writing.

 

Jndas said:

 

"In ancient times we find some brahminical sages such as Vyasa were also black."

You replied:

 

Veda Vyasa was not born in al brahminical family.

 

My rejoinder:

 

Please read again the highlighted portion of J N Das' statement. It says brahminical sages and not "a sage born into a Brahmana family". So, your answer is irrelevant. It also shows that your comprehension is inadequate. Just to get you to think here are a few teasers:

 

A brahminical person need not be born into a brahmana family.

A brahmin need not be born into a brahmin family.

One doesn't become a brahmin just because he is born into a brahmin family.

 

If they trigger some thoughts in your brain, please start reading Bhagavad Gita and you would certainly gain.

[shvu]

 

 

A brahminical person need not be born into a brahmana family.

A brahmin need not be born into a brahmin family.

One doesn't become a brahmin just because he is born into a brahmin family.

 

 

Karthik,

 

I've a couple of doubts here. If birth is unimportant to determine caste, how does one explain the concepts of lineage and gothra? Also, how does the BG support this idea?

 

Thanks

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Vyasa is the son of Parashara, who is the grandson of Vasishtha. His immediate family lineage consists solely of rishis, who are all brahminical in nature.

[karthik_v]

Shvu,

 

I didn't say that birth is unimportant - I meant that it is not the sole deciding factor for one to become a Brahmana. Birth certainly is important. If we accept the concepts of karma and reincarnation, then it logically follows that our birth into a particular family is an outcome of that karma.

 

But, birth alone doesn't render someone a Brahmana. This is evident from the fact that one becomes a dvija only after a sacred thread ceremony, which is in reality initiation by a guru so that he can chant the Gayatri mantra. So, a person becomes a Brahmana or even a dvija upon receiving the mantra and not by the virtue of his birth.

 

BG 4.13 clearly says that one's varna, be it Brahmana or otherwise, is only by the virtue of his choice of guna and karma. It doesn't even talk of birth.

 

Hope that clarifies.

[vsdprasad]

Some more clarification:

birth may be unimportant in few cases like for eg., a brahmin person can adopt a child who may be born in a non-brahmin family and then the child gets brahminical qualities after his thread ceremony (its called second birth) and then his entire progeny will become a brahmin family even though he is not brahmin-born. Such type of cases may be few.

 

Eventhough it is said that a person with past good karma will be born in a brahmin families, still

A person who is born in a brahmin family need not have brahminical qualities. Ravana was brahmin born but he didn't have good virtues even though he was a good devotee of lord shiva.

 

There is a jocular saying that says: "Pandita putra parama sunta !"

I saw some brahmin pujaris who are not satisfied with the present day people. I heard one saying about the typical schedue of a brahmin boy (bridegroom):

Day 1: thread ceremony,

Day 2: marriage,

Day 3: honeymoon !.

Actually thread ceremony is supposed to be done before the child attains 9 yrs of age.

but nowadays brahmin parents are also not insistent. the generation that belonged to grandfathers did regular sandhyavandanam . this has slowly declined in the next generation. it is hard to find the custom in the current generation. although there are some good families esp in south india who regularly follow the custom.

and how'd be the situation in the coming generation and the next ones?? Easy to speculate!

 

-Prasad.

 

[theist]

I see different ways to approach this question.We can look at it from a distance and attempt to analyze the history of racism on religious practice which is interesting and of value.But I believe the real value will be realized when we couple what we learn with serious honest introspection.

 

How do various prejudices effect my choices on whom I choose to associate with, and what effect do they have on the quality of that association?

 

I remember reading a Prabhupada letter from way back when, where he was giving the okay for some black bodied devotees to have a separate temple.I've often wondered why they requested that?

 

 

[shvu]

 

I just cannot imagine traditional Braahmanas accepting one who does not have a gotra, Shaaka, etc as a Braahmana. Gotra has signified ancestry right from the days of the Tandya Braahmana of the Sama veda to the present times. Even if we were to assume that one can *become* a Braahmana by virtue of his qualities, he will still not have a valid Braahmana gotra, which ipso facto makes him a non-Braahmana. The Gita only describes the qualities of the four varnas. It cannot be taken to mean that the Gita sanctions the possibility of Braahmana qualities in one who was born to parents of a different varna.

 

In the story of Satyakaama Jaabaala [Chaandogya upanishad, 4.4.1-5], the Guru says "A non-Braahmana will not be able to say this...I will initiate you for you did not depart from the truth". Shankara interprets this verse literally and says straightforwardness is a characterestic of the Braahmana varna and not of others. Also in his upadesha saahasri, Shankara says this in the opening verses: "The means to liberation should be explained to a Braahmana disciple....who has been examined by the Guru in respect of his caste, profession, conduct, learning and parentage"

 

Finally, the orthodoxity of Vaishanavas [Raamaanuja and Maadhva sampradaayaas] is well known. Given the above, I fail to see any scriptural support to any view other than the stringent, traditional view. (This should not be mistaken to mean, I am in favor of this view)

 

Cheers