Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Slavery accepted by Vedic culture?

Rate this topic


theist

Recommended Posts

Was slavery accepted in Vedic culture?

 

 

Prabhupäda: So therefore must be the real center. Nobody is paying us any salary, superficially. But why we are working? [break] Therefore the slavery was there.You must work. Those who are südras will not work. Therefore the slavery was there. [break]

 

Ädi-kesava: In this country, when they had the slavery, the masters were not qualified either.

 

Prabhupäda: Yes. That is the defect. That is the defect. Either the master is defective or the servant is defective or the system is defective. ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Prabhupäda: Yes. Spiritual benefits, they do not understand. What is this building? This is also old construction?

 

Bhagavän: It's a church. (asking someone:) Is that from the Roman empire? [break]

 

Prabhupäda: ...in right position. All wonderful buildings, there is no doubt. Such huge buildings in any other parts of the world is not visible. Just the thickness of the building.

 

Bhagavän: They kept many slaves the Romans. They had many slaves.

 

Prabhupäda: Yes. Slaves? This word is used in Vedic language also, slave. The Africans, they were meant for becoming slaves.

 

Yogesvara: Srila Prabhupäda, can we take a picture here please?

 

Prabhupäda: Yes. Kiräta-hüëändhra-pulinda-pulkaçä äbhéra-çumbhä yavanäù khasädayaù. So the Kirätas, they were always slaves of the Äryans. The Äryan people used to keep slaves, but they were treating slaves very nicely. Later on it degraded. Otherwise, slaves were kept just like family members.

 

Bhagavän: They had no resentment.

 

Prabhupäda: No, they were very happy. Just like you keep a dog. It is slave but it is very happy under the protection of good master.

 

Bhagavän: Actually, they like to work hard.

 

Prabhupäda: Yes, they like to work hard and they want good protection. That is their happiness. Even still in Africa, the servants, domestic servants, Africans, I have seen in Indian family, they are very happy. They are very happy, and the master also takes care of them. They want to eat sumptuously, and that's all. They have no other ambition....

Morning Walk May 26,1974 Rome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prabhupäda: Südra is to be controlled only. They are never given to be freedom. Just like in America. The blacks were slaves. They were under control. And since you have given them equal rights they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal right? That is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that. Then they will be satisfied.

 

Room coversation.Varnashrama system must be introduced Feb 14, 1977 Mayapura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was everything we read about as a component of vedic culture a positive thing?Human sacrifice included?That's for another thread.

 

TRANSLATION

Thereafter, in the sixth year, after wandering in the forest, Rohita returned to the capital of his father. He purchased from Ajégarta his second son, named Sunaùsepha. Then he offered Sunaùsepha to his father, Hariçcandra, to be used as the sacrificial animal and offered Hariscandra his respectful obeisances.

 

PURPORT

It appears that in those days a man could be purchased for any purpose. Hariscandra was in need of a person to sacrifice as the animal in a yajna and thus fulfill his promise to Varuna, and a man was purchased from another man for this purpose. Millions of years ago, animal sacrifice and slave trade both existed. Indeed, they have existed since time immemorial.SB canto 9

 

And the "animal"had a human form.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hari Bol Theist prabhuji,

 

You have said that slavery is accepted by the vedas. Can you show me even 1 reference from the 4 vedas or the principal 13 upanishads or even BG, in support of your claims? Please don't quote the words of SP alone. With due regards, I must point out that his words don't automatically become vedas. Vedas are apaurusya. Period.

 

The same goes for human sacrifice or purusa medha yagna. you have just quoted a verse from SB, which is not the vedas. If you want to substantiate your claim that the vedas supported human sacrifice or slavery, you must quote form the vedas. Quoting from puranas is not a substitute.

 

It is a baloney that the slaves and the servants were ever well treated. Sir, may I ask you if you have ever empathised with the pains of a slave or an untouchable? A true devotee is the one who displays the courage to stand up against that inhuman practice. Sri Ramanujacarya did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note the question mark.

 

But the answers of SP make it sound as if the vedas accepted slavery. I didn't see you differentiating between the shrutis and smritis. Since the term "vedic" is pretty liberally used in GV circles to refer to anything, I thought of making the things clear.

 

You cannot argue that varna is not birth based and only based on guna and also claim that slavery existed. They don't mix. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not really making an argument, just raising a question on some interesting things I have noticed.

 

My question can be answered by refuting the condoned existence of slavery in vedic culture by citing the vedas.

 

Personally I know nothing of the vedas or any scripture for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Srila Prabhupada's use of the word "slavery" isn't exactly in line with our concepts of slavery. In Vedic times the kings had thousands of maidservants who received no payment for their work. They were sometimes given as gifts to other kings, or at the time of a marriage. But they were treated respectfully and lived a very comfortable life. Perhaps theword "slave" does not quite describe them properly, after all they were directly enjoying the kings opulences to some degree, not that they were chained up in a dungeon eating dry bread. They lived better off then most people.

 

It was just another type of occupation, where you don't have to worry about anything except doing your small duties. You were taken care of for life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yogesvara: Yeah, but that was exactly the situation that sparked the Communist revolution. When the workers felt themselves exploited, then they revolted.

 

Prabhupäda: No, workers, what is that? Exploited?

 

Yogesvara: Yes, when the südras were seeing that, Oh, these men, they are keeping us as slaves, and they are making us work just for our food, then they revolted.

 

Prabhupäda: No, no. You should keep them such nicely and friendly way, they will never think like that. They will think that you are giving him food and shelter, and you are taking care, giving them protection to their family. Then they will be happy. Then they are happy. When you give them all protection, then they will be happy. Now,Just like in Japan. The industrialists give all men. They give food. They give education. They give shelter. So they work very happily.

 

Bhagavän: They like to work.

 

Prabhupäda: Yes.

 

Bhagavän: It's not that people like to be idle.

 

Prabhupäda: I have seen. And the Dai Nippon directors, they live very poorly, but still, they do not like to give up the service because they are assured of their family, protection, medicine, food, education. They did not like. Never mind, it is not very luxurious. Still, they stick. That I have seen.

 

Yogesvara: Because there are good benefits.

 

Prabhupäda: Good benefits, yes. If you are assured of your food, shelter, and necessities of life, then you will never grudge. That was the system.MW May 27,1974 Rome

 

Is there a difference between sudra and slave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hari Bol Theist prabhuji,

 

My question can be answered by refuting the condoned existence of slavery in vedic culture by citing the vedas.

 

How can refute a negative? If slavery doesn't even find a mention in the vedas and the upanishads, it simply means that vedas don't talk of them. If someone claims that vedas supported slavery, just as Bible and Quran did and just as Jesus and Mohammad openly suported it, then is it not upto that person to come up with evidence?

 

J N Das prabhuji,

 

Srila Prabhupada's use of the word "slavery" isn't exactly in line with our concepts of slavery.

 

Here is what Theist quoted from the words of SP:

 

Prabhupäda: Yes. Slaves? This word is used in Vedic language also, slave. The Africans, they were meant for becoming slaves.

 

How do we even attempt to explain this? Do you also believe that Africans were meant to become slaves? Does this not fly in the face of our claim that varna isn't by birth, but only by guna?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple answer is to study the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and then conclude whether Srila Prabhupada's view was that all blacks in the world should be held as slaves in Alabama picking cotton and getting lynched once in a while; or if perhaps taking a single sentence out of context has led to confusion.

 

The principle is that those who are not intelligent should not be given absolute freedom to destroy themselves and others. In a perfect society, the king takes this as his duty. In corrupt societies of Kali yuga, everyone tries to exploit others.

 

Even today in India people will do anything to get a government job. They are willing to become modern slaves to the government because of the security involved with such a job. They will be taken care of for life, even when they are no longer fit to work (through pension, retirement bonuses, etc.) In many cases, their children will be given their same job when they retire. A government job in India is many people's dream. That was the case with servents in Vedic India. They would be protected and maintained for their entire life, enjoying oppulences they could never dream of, simply because they were serving a king.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, its not a question of blacks or whites, but of intelligence to act properly. Those who are ignorant should not be given absolute freedom. Just see the situation of the African countries today. They have been fighting civil wars for years and years and years, killing each other for no reason at all. When a country finally puts a stop to their civil war, they attack a neighboring country. Such countries do not deserve absolute freedom to destroy their people. Misuse of their freedom has resulted in countless famines throughout Africa, and the starvation and death of millions of Africans.

I would certainly look forward to a saintly king taking over the continent and engaging the majority of the population in productive agricultural work, while treating the workers as part of his own family. He would provide perfect security to everyone, unemployment would cease to exist, famine would be stopped, as well as war. In a peaceful environment, people could begin the process of educating their children so that they could pursue other occupations if they chose. In the meantime, their entire family was maintained and protected, with 100% job security for life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hari Bol J N Das prabhuji,

 

perhaps taking a single sentence out of context has led to confusion.

 

Quite possible. Theist prabhu quoted this. That is the end of what I know on this. What was the context in which SP said this? Can either you or Theist prabhu, please post the entire conversation? Even then, here the reference is very clearly to the Africans and it says that they are meant to be slaves. It doesn't say that unintelligent people shouldn't become kings or rulers. So, let us have the entire context and evaluate.

 

Also, there is a big difference between a job with the Indian government and being a slave. When you work for GOI, you are paid better than the national average, you have legal protection and every right that the private sector doesn't provide. A slave never had these rights.

 

Yes, Africa is having strife. It needs better governance. You may seek a saintly king and I may seek the elimination of dictators and installation of democracy. Both of us will agree that slavery is not the answer. Slavery never benefitted the Africans. It only benefitted their Arab, Roman and white masters. They were cheap labour, ill-treated and had no rights.

 

General comment:

 

How would you feel if your wife is taken away by the master and your son and daughter sold away to another and you are asked to go away 500 miles to work in a farm? That was what slavery was all about. It was never benevelont, despite what Gone with the wind attempted to feed you. It is baloney to claim all that some people, Africans here, want is food and shelter. People want freedom above all. They go to any extent to safeguard their family, unless they have been brainwashed. During the WW II, several Indian families fled Burma as refugees. I vividly remember a black & white photo of a woman who had been shot, had lost her leg and was bleeding to death. She was carrying her new born and was breast feeding her, even as she was dying. You know why? She desperately hoped that her son would survive and be free and would never have to flee as a refugee.

 

So, I am very shocked that SP made such a statement. I would honestly seek the context and hope that it was something different. At the bare minimum, I would hope that these were interpolations from some bigot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also, there is a big difference between a job with the Indian government and being a slave. When you work for GOI, you are paid better than the national average, you have legal protection and every right that the private sector doesn't provide. A slave never had these rights.

 

 

But what I am saying is the servants of the kings did have these rights. Your conception of slaves is in reference to the blacks who were mistreated and killed. Prabhupada's usage is clearly not this, as he mentions they are to be treated as family, protected and maintained. When interpreting someone else's statements, you need to use their definitions of words, and not your own. You are trying to use your definition of slave and then put it into Srila Prabhupada's statements since he uses the same word.

 

If you take Srila Prabhupada's definition of slave or servant, where a king maintains and protects them as his own family member, then yes, those in Africa were meant to take such a service, as it would be for their own welfare and interest. Unfortunately they didnt have the good fortune of such a saintly king (raja-rishi), and as a result they were abused, killed, and underwent much suffering. Their freedom from oppresion has not brought them anything else. In some countries they have democracy (which lincoln refers to as "a terrible form of government"), yet they still kill each other and create man-made disasters such as famine. Ignorant people will use democracy to attack and oppress the minority communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hari Bol J N Das prabhuji,

 

those in Africa were meant to take such a service, as it would be for their own welfare and interest.

 

In that case, who would be their kings, priests or teachers [brahmins] and vaisyas? Would they be non-Africans or Africans themselves? If they could be Africans [though not restricted to them], then the statement that Africans are meant to be slaves is wrong. If they have to be non-Africans [leaving Africans out], then that is pure racism, because as per BG varna is not based on birth but one's gunas.

 

Above all, I would like to know why Africans alone are meant to take such a service, while not others. If Africa is in strife today, let us not forget that the whole of Europe was almost like this [remember the plague?] and every form of class divide existed. So, why Africans alone should become slaves?

 

I think it would be better to have the entire conversation so that we can understand the context clearly, instead of speculating. No, I am not thrusting my definition on the words spoken by SP. This is a very serious issue to me and I will not do that. I would rather wait for the context. If you say that his definition of the word slave was different, then I would like to ask how do you know. Do you have the entire conversation?

 

But what I am saying is the servants of the kings did have these rights.

 

Did they have the right to challenge the king? I doubt. Sure, there was no slavery in India, but I am under no illusion that the king's servants had many rights. On the contrary, a person who works for GOI can challenge his employer openly and still not lose his job. He can quit the job if he chooses to. The ideal king, in my opinion, belongs to the epics. In the real world, they almost always never existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Above all, I would like to know why Africans alone are meant to take such a service, while not others.

 

 

He never said Africans alone are meant to be slaves. That is your misunderstanding.

 

The African culture is and has been for thousands of years a very tamasic culture, making the overall population shudras by qualification.

 

 

In that case, who would be their kings, priests or teachers [brahmins] and vaisyas?

 

 

If they are fortunate, their king would be Dhruva or Prahlada, and they would be greatly fortunate. If they are unfortunate, their king would be the British or French,and they would suffer unlimitedly.

 

Who should the king be? Only someone like Prahlada or Dhruva, who see all living entities as part and parcel of God, and therefore do not try to exploit anyone.

 

 

If you say that his definition of the word slave was different, then I would like to ask how do you know.

 

 

Because I have read and studied all of the writings of Srila Prabhupada and know his usage of words. Besides, even in this short conversations he says, "they are treated as family." It should be self-evident.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prabhupäda: Yes. Kiräta-hüëändhra-pulinda-pulkaçä äbhéra-çumbhä yavanäù khasädayaù. So the Kirätas, they were always slaves of the Äryans. The Äryan people used to keep slaves, but they were treating slaves very nicely. Later on it degraded. Otherwise, slaves were kept just like family members.

 

 

This is from a morning walk conversation.That means what it says Prabhupada would take a daily walk in the morning with some disciples.He would chant japa,walk and talk philosophy with his students.

 

The place in the conversation that is pertinent to our discussion begins as they walk pass some famous grand church that the Romans built.That is where my post starts.

 

After the clipped part he explains how Marxism is also requiring slaves, even though the decry the concept.No need to post it all to keep the context.

 

I have a question.Who are the kiratas that were always slaves of the Aryans?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kiratas are Assamese (those from the Indian state of Assam). This is more evidence that Srila Prabhupada's use of the word slave is not the same as modern usages. The assamese have never literally been enslaved.

 

Prabhupada states:

 

 

Kirata: A province of old Bharata-varsa mentioned in the Bhisma-parva of Mahabharata. Generally the Kiratas are known as the aboriginal tribes of India, and in modern days the Santal Parganas in Bihar and Chota Nagpur might comprise the old province named Kirata.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J N Das prabhuji,

 

He never said Africans alone are meant to be slaves. That is your misunderstanding.

 

Well, in the quotation by Theist, SP just says that Africans are meant to be slaves. He doesn't talk of any other people that way. So, I don't know what my misunderstanding is.

 

The African culture is and has been for thousands of years a very tamasic culture, making the overall population shudras by qualification.

 

Has the African culture, today or before, been any more tamasic than the western or Islamic culture?

 

If they are fortunate, their king would be Dhruva or Prahlada, and they would be greatly fortunate. If they are unfortunate, their king would be the British or French,and they would suffer unlimitedly.

 

First part is fine, not the second. Even if they are unfortunate, why should they have the tamasic French or British as their rulers. In what way the Africans are less qualified than these that they can't rule themselves? I just want to know shastrically.

 

Theist prabhuji,

 

Prabhupäda: Yes. Kiräta-hüëändhra-pulinda-pulkaçä äbhéra-çumbhä yavanäù khasädayaù. So the Kirätas, they were always slaves of the Äryans. The Äryan people used to keep slaves, but they were treating slaves very nicely. Later on it degraded. Otherwise, slaves were kept just like family members.

 

Where is this Sanskrit quote from? I don't even see the word Arya in the verse.

 

Guest,

 

It was however the Mongoloids who entered the land through the eastern mountainous passes who were to almost overrun the land long before the time of the compilation of the Hindu religious literature known as the Vedas around the 10th Century BC. The Vedas called the Mongoloids Kiratas..

 

How do you know that the mongoloids entered Assam from elsewhere and displaced the local population? Is there any archeological evidence to support your claim? Please tell me where in the 4 vedas, the Assamese are referred to as Kiratas. How do you know that the vedas were compiled around the 10th century BCE? Awaiting objective responses from you. You have also stated that the Aryans enslaved Australoids. Can you please provide me evidence for the same from the 4 vedas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

karthik:Where is this Sanskrit quote from? I don't even see the word Arya in the verse.

 

It's a conversation.Try to see it from that perspective.A free flowing conversation between teacher and students as they walk and chant japa.

 

These conversations are available on mp3 in which you can get the feel of the scene and setting.That will help alot here.Better than just reading the transcripts.

 

karthik:"Has the African culture, today or before, been any more tamasic than the western or Islamic culture?"

 

I know this wasn't addressed to me but just one comment.

 

African culture is almost all tamasic.What has been developed there?What literature has been produced?

 

The West has been very rajarsic.Madly producing, attempting to acquire etc.Tamasic also as well as sattvic to some degree.More mixed, but very passionate. Mostly passion and ignorance as I see it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

JNDAS:He never said Africans alone are meant to be slaves. That is your misunderstanding.

 

KARTHIK: Well, in the quotation by Theist, SP just says that Africans are meant to be slaves. He doesn't talk of any other people that way. So, I don't know what my misunderstanding is.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada is making a statement about a particular culture. He is not speaking about other cultures in that conversation. Yet you conclue that Srila Prabhupada thought only Africans were meant to be slaves. Do you seriously not see your misunderstanding?

 

 

I say "X is blue."

 

You reply, "How can you say Y isn't blue!"

 

Well I never said Y isn't blue, I never even mentioned Y. I was speaking about X, and said X is blue, not that other things aren't blue.

 

When interpreting language we have to take into account the grammar being used, the context of the conversation, and the actual words being used. You have done none of the three, yet you have reached a conclusion about something that was not even spoken about. You have a misunderstanding.

 

 

 

JNDAS: If they are fortunate, their king would be Dhruva or Prahlada, and they would be greatly fortunate. If they are unfortunate, their king would be the British or French,and they would suffer unlimitedly.

 

KARTHIK: First part is fine, not the second. Even if they are unfortunate, why should they have the tamasic French or British as their rulers. In what way the Africans are less qualified than these that they can't rule themselves? I just want to know shastrically.

 

 

 

Again you have switched the statement I made. I said they "would", and you changed it to "should". There is a huge difference between these two words. "Would" refers to karmic results that arise due to their unfortunate past actions - by the laws of karma, they would suffer. "Should" means that's what I want them to undergo. You are mistaken, and you are not reading carefully enough.

 

Again, what I said is, "If they are unfortuante [bad karmic reactions] they would have evil kings such as the British or French."

 

You somehow concluded that me or Srila Prabhupada wanted the British to enslave the Africans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...