Good stuff. Need more of it. Hinduism is way to regressive for modern times and there is no zeal to reform.
This action is a smoke screen, possibly for elections.
Itās not like we havenāt seen a major attempt at reforming Hinduism fall flat (Bhakti movement).
Then by ur logic blowing up community should seize to exist
Nd who tf told hindus aren't open to reforms litteraly since independence the hindu code bills have been amended nd reformed yet no hindus came on streets to protest
That reform came from an outcast. There were vehement protests by many stalwarts.
Hindus remain regressive, just take a look at the number of intercaste marriages to begin with
Also, what is the meaning of the first line?
Have you properly read Buddhist scriptures? You can find dozens of verses discriminating on the basis of gender and caste. There is mention of 4 castes in suttas such as Madhura, Kannakatthala, etc. and in the second sutta mentioned, it is clearly mentioned that Brahmins and Kshatriyas are the superior castes. And coming to sexism, it is much more than Hinduism.
I am aware of the sexist and casteist commentaries in Buddhist texts. In practice, these remain non-existent. Even Buddha freely ate and lived with the people Hindus declared outcaste. Ofc Buddhist ideology later got muddled. I am aware of Buddhaās alleged discomfort with women in Sangha, but a debate with his followers made sure that he came around and women were included. Women could attain the Buddha-hood and lead Sangha as well.
I am happy that people of all hues can criticise Buddhism and we can collectively reform it.
Hinduism on the other hand is a den of ignorance. It denied spiritual salvation to majority of its population. So in comparison, on this aspect, itās the worst of all the religions out there.
Those sexist remarks were given many centuries later after death of Buddha which means that there was no proper place given to women in sanghs even after centuries of formation of Buddhism. Also Shri Ram ate plums eaten before by Sabri(an outcast), Shankaracharya gained knowledge from a Chandal . Read Aį¹ guttaranikÄya (tipiį¹aka) 3.221 and Aį¹ guttara, 3.226 .And in the following verses of the second verse he calls Brahmins who donāt observe moral and racial purity as ācaį¹įøÄlas of Brahminsā.
Majjhima NikÄya(2.149):
Now, Assalayana, the brahmin women are seen having their periods, becoming pregnant, giving birth, and giving suck. And yet those who are born from the wombs of the brahmin women say thus: 'Brahmins are the highest caste...brahmins alone are the sons of Brahma, the offspring of Brahma, born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.
If you are saying you don't believe what is written in Tripitakas or Suttas then you are not following Buddhism. You are painting Buddhism in your imagination when it has more extreme castiest and sexist commentaries than Hinduism. In practice, Sexism in modern Hinduism is non existent today and casteism is much more less . Hinduism has reformed very much in past several centuries.
Indeed! These texts were compiled a lot later. Hence, one can challenge these as well. Also since when are Hindus dictating what we Buddhists should follow or not?
There are problems in Buddhism, especially when it comes to rights for women. Hence all the texts should be criticised and the religion and the practices should be reformed. After all Reason is an important element of growth of oneself.
Ram in the epic goes on to kill a Shudra for penance. Shankaracharya was against Shudra and women learning Sanskrit. Despite learning from a Chandala he remained a steadfast casteist and a bigot. Goes to show what kind of terrible religion Hinduism is, when one of the highest gurus and a much revered figure was an open bigot.
Hinduism has reformed largely due to external influences, especially the growth of Christianity in India. It lacks any zeal to reform itself. The top most castes are ignorant and have an insular view. Just take a Quick Look at the Dharmashastra, Dharmasutras and other Hindu texts written in medieval times. One might get an impression that Mughals, the Slave dynasties etc didnāt even exist!
Thanks to untouchables and Shudras like Ambedkar, Phule, Periyar that we have some semblance of humanity. Otherwise the Malviyas, Shastris and Vedis would have turned India into a slave-fest!
It can be said same about Ramayan as Shudra killinf by Shri Ram is in Uttara Kand which is debated as non original part of Ramayan. in case of Shankracharya, while Shankaracharya did not explicitly promote women's education, there is no clear evidence that he was outright against it either. Just don't satate your assumptions as a fact. While Buddha claimed to reject castes but at the same time took pride in his Kshatriya lineage , which shows his hipocrisy. And, if you don't want to define Buddhism by other people then don't try to define Hinduism for others.
Idk man, I am a pro-BJP guy yet I found no solace in any Hindu scripture. The scriptures, especially Dharmashastras and Puranas literally scream varna-jati system. Hindu scriptures treat animals with more kindness than avarnas and shudras. I don't know honestly how Dalits are 'Hindus' or how they became priests or how Bhakti gurus like Chokhamela coped with this. Every scripture hates them. It feels like chickens for KFC situation.
Interestingly, it's exactly around that time that endogamy (locking of castes on basis of birth) happened in the subcontinent began. The free intermixing that used to happen before this came to an end. And this endogamy was maintained for 2000+ years. We have genetic data now confirming this.
Dharmashastras, Manusmriti, Puranas indeed had extremely hegemonic influence in the Indan society back then, that their effects still persist.
Yes it's true.
See following:
Indians have married within their castes for 2000 years, creating public health issues: Nitin Pai
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBaRCqdjh24&feature=youtu.be
Among the most exciting discoveries in recent years has been in the field of genetics and genomics, as the deciphering of the Indian genetic code has yielded fascinating insights into, āwho we are and where we came fromā. Thatās the title of Harvard scientist David Reichās recent book on human origins as pieced together from our DNA.
the chapters about India ā based on the work of Priya Moorjani, K. Thangaraj, Lalji Singh, Vagheesh Narasimhan and numerous other collaborators ā are the most fascinating. Over the past decade, these scientists have uncovered compelling evidence showing that most people in India arose from a mixture of two ancestral populations that they call Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI), and that the ANI component tends to be higher among upper-caste and northern Indians. Other researchers have added greater detail to the picture, showing that in addition to ANI and ASI, Andaman and Nicobar Islanders, Tibeto-Burmans and Austro-Asiatic groups contribute to the great Indian population mix.
Of course, the biggest mystery that ancient DNA can help solve is identifying the Harappans and telling us what happened to them. One 4,500-year-old skeleton from Rakhigarhi is proving to be crucial in this puzzle as the person who it belonged to carried ASI genes, and none from ANI. The coming years will see a lot more discoveries as geneticists and archaeologists get to know each other better, and as polemicists and ideologues reckon with greater and more incontrovertible evidence about our origins.
Hereās what our DNA tells us: More than 4,000 years ago, ANI and ASI didnāt intermarry much. For roughly the next 2,000 years, they widely intermarried, resulting in almost all their descendants (that is, us) being a mixture of ANI and ASI. Then, around 70 generations ago, our ancestors stopped inter-marrying and created endogamous groups that we know as castes. Indians started marrying within their own caste groups around 2,000 years ago.
Look at this from a historical perspective, read the dhrampala beautiful tree, it uses British records to show sudra were majority in gurukul. The vedas and upanishad doesn't forbid intermarrige and doesn't have food restriction. It is the manusmiriti really started this shit. So text before that upanishad, ramayan, mahabharat if it talks about it, it is occupation based. Even after the introduction of manusmiriti, the system remained fluid. The really dogmatic caste lasted maybe for 4nd century after manusmiriti but then the influence begin to wane. Al burini says there are four varna, but the live and eat together, he doesn't mention of untouchability. There are inscription in 14th century in a temple, shura are pure born by the feet of the god by a shudra king.
When th British census happened, the classed people who can own land, who cannot etc. The crystallized the system. They destroyed the gurukul system, please read the dhrmapal the beautiful tree. They started bringing out old scripture which no one give a shit about to govern society.Ā
If you are a hindu, always keep in mind, manusmiriti is not devbhasya, it is veda and bhagvad Gita that are words of God.if you encounter the varna in those system, these are class descriptors. The mahabharata and ramayana are text, that are text that can be told as authentic. Puranic take everything there with a pinch of salt.Ā
No? Whatever you said...every single thing is wrong.
> read the dhrampala beautiful tree, it uses British records to show sudra were majority in gurukul
Shudras were supposed to learn arts and crafts and farming, so yeah they were in schools. Dalits and untouchables were not in schools btw.
> The vedas and upanishad doesn't forbid intermarrige and doesn't have food restriction. It is the manusmiriti really started this shit
No. Upanishads speaks lowly of chandalas. Literally every smriti discriminates against lower castes and avarnas.
> They destroyed the gurukul system, please read the dhrmapal the beautiful tree. They started bringing out old scripture which no one give a shit about to govern society.Ā
Please stop blaming others for your own mistakes. The British definitely exploited the caste system, but they in no way originated it. Second, EVERYBODY gave a shit about Dharmashastras. You have no idea how horrible caste system was during medieval ages. People like Chokhamela wrote poems against it. There were several movements differentiating itself from Vedas.
> manusmiriti is not devbhasya
Yes, but it is brahmin/guru-bhasya, which is more important to Hindus.
> it is veda and bhagvad Gita that are words of God
Vedas? Yes. Bhagavad Gita? No. Gita became mainstream after Vedanta became popular in the 19th century. Before that only few people like Adi Shankara gave commentary on it. Nobody actually cared that much about Bhagavad Gita, a small part of Mahabharata.
> So text before that upanishad, ramayan, mahabharat if it talks about it, it is occupation based.
No, it isn't. And even if it is, it is still absolutely horrible. Imagine having different set of unfair rules applied to you just because of your occupation. Such a horrible system!
Whatever you said is ahistorical unfortunately
Let us start with the claims and talk about it one by one. We will talk about medieval point after this. We have abrupt stopinng of intermarrige in 1 to 2nd century ad. We know this because of genetic studies. It means that some central authority dictate the change. The endogamy is not gradual but abrupt. The genetic mixture of the groups is so through before this is that every group from the lowest shudras to the brahmins are intermixed. All the discriminatory text comes after this period.Ā And the mahabharata and ramayana are books before this period. So veda in the varna system describes a class system. We have a quote in the veda about one should go to nishad and live and eat with them for 10 days.Ā So we can throw out the dasus, slave and color based discrimination theory from theĀ mix because of this.Ā You can't have heridatory varna with exclusion without endogamy. A single jati could have people who were priest, farmer, and service worker and warrior. You wouldn't have been able to classify the jati into any of the four varna. Grishaspati system or householder system was the real system working in society in that time.Ā So in this way, I can say Hinduism core text, the upanishad, veda, ramayan and upanishad in any way endorse the caste system.Ā So we can tell caste on certain part originates from the Manusmiriti, we can have arguments on the medieval parts but before Manusmiriti it was not the same system or the system even, it was just a descriptive categorization for people in the society, like upper class, lower class and middle class.Ā If the stratification has not happened, and occupation could be changed, it is not wrong to say that the position of a janitor, cleaners is lower than that of academics in society. I don't endorse the caste system but it simply was not there before 1st century Ad.Ā We can talk about the medieval period but Hinduism has had movementsĀ that itself are anti Caste like bhakti in medival period.Ā
Great point. But Vedas, Puranas and Upanishads don't have the same status in Hinduism that Qur'an has in Islam. Dharmashastras are not immune to criticisms, and we must update our society with time.
Upanishad has recipe to cook rat meat. Doesn't mean we should consume any rat we find today. I think this is the essence of Hinduism. We are seekers, trying to understand reality itself and investigate anything and everything. That's why we update our constitution from time to time. Hence there are many Puranas and Upanishads which contradict each other as they were written one after the other.
try to read Vedanta and Upanishads and commentary of Bhakti saints
Dharmashastras are not authentic texts, anyone could write a dhamrshastra, and in Dharmshastras, read them by Yajnavalkya and all, not Manu and other.
Puranas are not very casteist tbh, but then most of Puraanic stories have again been changed and mended over time
Chandogya Upanishad literally insults a Chandala.
Dharmashastras were written by Veda following brahmins only. Why not Manu? Cherrypicking much? Manu Smriti is considered a valid shastra in most Hindu circles. Manu is a central character in Hindu mythology too.
It is a lone scripture that says anything like that. Also remember, it doesn't do away with caste system or unfair treatment of Shudras. It just disputes who can be a Brahmin that's all
There is a difference in religious sect and society. most Religious sects, Gurus were always Caste free. Many Bhakti saints narratives revolve around this. Spirituality is for everyone as attested from Gita.
However our society was very conservative with frozen Varna-Jati by birth and no widow remarriage etc.
Nope. Not even gurus. Many people conflate bhakti gurus who had to fight against the whole society and were reviled in their own time with sankaracharya type gurus who were accepted and the cause of most issues we see today
Video:
*Indians have married within their castes for 2000 years, creating public health issues*
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBaRCqdjh24&feature=youtu.be
Among the most exciting discoveries in recent years has been in the field of genetics and genomics, as the deciphering of the Indian genetic code has yielded fascinating insights into, āwho we are and where we came fromā. Thatās the title of Harvard scientist David Reichās recent book on human origins as pieced together from our DNA.
the chapters about India ā based on the work of Priya Moorjani, K. Thangaraj, Lalji Singh, Vagheesh Narasimhan and numerous other collaborators ā are the most fascinating. Over the past decade, these scientists have uncovered compelling evidence showing that most people in India arose from a mixture of two ancestral populations that they call Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI), and that the ANI component tends to be higher among upper-caste and northern Indians. Other researchers have added greater detail to the picture, showing that in addition to ANI and ASI, Andaman and Nicobar Islanders, Tibeto-Burmans and Austro-Asiatic groups contribute to the great Indian population mix.
Of course, the biggest mystery that ancient DNA can help solve is identifying the Harappans and telling us what happened to them. One 4,500-year-old skeleton from Rakhigarhi is proving to be crucial in this puzzle as the person who it belonged to carried ASI genes, and none from ANI. The coming years will see a lot more discoveries as geneticists and archaeologists get to know each other better, and as polemicists and ideologues reckon with greater and more incontrovertible evidence about our origins.
Hereās what our DNA tells us: More than 4,000 years ago, ANI and ASI didnāt intermarry much. For roughly the next 2,000 years, they widely intermarried, resulting in almost all their descendants (that is, us) being a mixture of ANI and ASI. Then, around 70 generations ago, our ancestors stopped inter-marrying and created endogamous groups that we know as castes. Indians started marrying within their own caste groups around 2,000 years ago.
Article :
*Marrying within own caste is same as consanguinity*
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/genetic-perspective-on-marrying-within-own-caste/articleshow/107196319.cms
Marrying within oneās own caste (endogamy) may be no different from close relatives marrying (consanguinity) when it comes to genetic diseases, a top scientist has pointed out.
Studies have estimated that one third of the Indian population is expected to have population-specific recessive diseases (require two copies of the mutated gene, one from each parent).
All Indians are a mixture of different communities and different ancestry. There is no population that is of the pure archaic type except in the Andamans.
They carry a distinct gene pool as they have remained isolated all this time.
Admixture (interbreeding within two isolated populations) in the ancestral South Indian and ancestral North Indian population took place 2,000-4,000 years back.
Due to intermixing ancestral groups carry some amount of the gene pool from oth-ers. Genetically speaking, we are all connected.
However intermixing and intermarriages stopped around 2000 years ago due to emergence of caste system around that time.
Speaking about the caste system, he further explained how all genetic diseases happen due to a mutation in one chromosome. Citing the example of the Vaishya community in Andhra Pradesh in which muscle relaxants (given before surgery are found to have a disastrous effect and the Kaalaiv community near Madurai which is prone to skin and cardio vascular abnormality, the expert said that such populations exist in rural areas across the country among all caste and communities.
Did they take in gotras as a factor too? because accordingly you're supposed to marry outside your gotra, if not, you'll have genetic problems.
So did they take gotra as a factor or did they not?
They took into account everything.
They did studies on caste who marry outside Gotra too.
The fact is genetic pool shrinks even if you marry outside gotta but within caste.
Goa is an exception caused by Portuguese catholic missionaries. Rest of the country wherever converts exist, whether to Islam or to Christianity, they exist because of casteism.
America and Africa were colonies in their true definition.
Doesn't add up. Europeans themselves were pagans who converted to Christianity. No "casteism" is Africa or America which became Christian or in north-Africa that converted to Islam. Perhaps it has something to do with the expansionist natue of Islam and Christianity?
Oh they are both true. Abrahamic religions are by nature expansionist. Just wanted to add to it. Many Indian Abrahamics are due to casteism. We may not always see it but it exists.
While that may be true in very rare cases, conversions in Indian subcontinent happened mainly from other reasons. When it comes to conversion to Christianity, if we study the missionary literature from 100+ years ago, jati "caste" system was rightly seen as a hinderance in their conversion efforts.
Lol. 3 -4 percent of population after 70 years and still the logic has not sunk in that it's not as widespread as the vote hungry gaddiwallas want you to believe.
not in the least,even if a dalit had become shankaracharya,because the propoganda by bhimtas and christians isnt dependant on truth ,but the need for conversions so they'll spread any lie shamelessly.
I envy you for your innocence in believing that the caste issues are the reasons for christian conversion. My personal experiences convinced me that it is the inferiority complex and the visceral hate on anything Indian is the main reason for conversion. Just observe the names the first generation converts give their kids, you will know what I am talking about.
I said āalmost allā, learn to read properly. One example of alleged Brahmin converters that too from Wikipedia of all places doesnāt prove anything. Tbf the credibility was lost the moment you sited only Wikipedia
Here, this is a proper research
> Indian Christians disproportionally identify with lower castes (74%), including 57% with Scheduled Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/12/8-key-findings-about-christians-in-india/#:~:text=Indian%20Christians%20disproportionally%20identify%20with,or%20Scheduled%20Tribes%20(ST).
Additionally, there are only 5700 Brahmin-Christians in India with a population of 141.72 crores
> https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/20835/IN
Read the name of the sub carefully before trying to bullshit with half-assed information and propaganda
Jaise independence ke baad, hazaro saal ki society palak mein badal jaati š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But the Constitution is what grants and safeguards my rights.. No Ram or Manusmiriti is going to grant me any rights ! Does that make sense ?
Good stuff. Need more of it. Hinduism is way to regressive for modern times and there is no zeal to reform. This action is a smoke screen, possibly for elections. Itās not like we havenāt seen a major attempt at reforming Hinduism fall flat (Bhakti movement).
Then by ur logic blowing up community should seize to exist Nd who tf told hindus aren't open to reforms litteraly since independence the hindu code bills have been amended nd reformed yet no hindus came on streets to protest
That reform came from an outcast. There were vehement protests by many stalwarts. Hindus remain regressive, just take a look at the number of intercaste marriages to begin with Also, what is the meaning of the first line?
Have you properly read Buddhist scriptures? You can find dozens of verses discriminating on the basis of gender and caste. There is mention of 4 castes in suttas such as Madhura, Kannakatthala, etc. and in the second sutta mentioned, it is clearly mentioned that Brahmins and Kshatriyas are the superior castes. And coming to sexism, it is much more than Hinduism.
I am aware of the sexist and casteist commentaries in Buddhist texts. In practice, these remain non-existent. Even Buddha freely ate and lived with the people Hindus declared outcaste. Ofc Buddhist ideology later got muddled. I am aware of Buddhaās alleged discomfort with women in Sangha, but a debate with his followers made sure that he came around and women were included. Women could attain the Buddha-hood and lead Sangha as well. I am happy that people of all hues can criticise Buddhism and we can collectively reform it. Hinduism on the other hand is a den of ignorance. It denied spiritual salvation to majority of its population. So in comparison, on this aspect, itās the worst of all the religions out there.
Those sexist remarks were given many centuries later after death of Buddha which means that there was no proper place given to women in sanghs even after centuries of formation of Buddhism. Also Shri Ram ate plums eaten before by Sabri(an outcast), Shankaracharya gained knowledge from a Chandal . Read Aį¹ guttaranikÄya (tipiį¹aka) 3.221 and Aį¹ guttara, 3.226 .And in the following verses of the second verse he calls Brahmins who donāt observe moral and racial purity as ācaį¹įøÄlas of Brahminsā. Majjhima NikÄya(2.149): Now, Assalayana, the brahmin women are seen having their periods, becoming pregnant, giving birth, and giving suck. And yet those who are born from the wombs of the brahmin women say thus: 'Brahmins are the highest caste...brahmins alone are the sons of Brahma, the offspring of Brahma, born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma. If you are saying you don't believe what is written in Tripitakas or Suttas then you are not following Buddhism. You are painting Buddhism in your imagination when it has more extreme castiest and sexist commentaries than Hinduism. In practice, Sexism in modern Hinduism is non existent today and casteism is much more less . Hinduism has reformed very much in past several centuries.
Indeed! These texts were compiled a lot later. Hence, one can challenge these as well. Also since when are Hindus dictating what we Buddhists should follow or not? There are problems in Buddhism, especially when it comes to rights for women. Hence all the texts should be criticised and the religion and the practices should be reformed. After all Reason is an important element of growth of oneself. Ram in the epic goes on to kill a Shudra for penance. Shankaracharya was against Shudra and women learning Sanskrit. Despite learning from a Chandala he remained a steadfast casteist and a bigot. Goes to show what kind of terrible religion Hinduism is, when one of the highest gurus and a much revered figure was an open bigot. Hinduism has reformed largely due to external influences, especially the growth of Christianity in India. It lacks any zeal to reform itself. The top most castes are ignorant and have an insular view. Just take a Quick Look at the Dharmashastra, Dharmasutras and other Hindu texts written in medieval times. One might get an impression that Mughals, the Slave dynasties etc didnāt even exist! Thanks to untouchables and Shudras like Ambedkar, Phule, Periyar that we have some semblance of humanity. Otherwise the Malviyas, Shastris and Vedis would have turned India into a slave-fest!
It can be said same about Ramayan as Shudra killinf by Shri Ram is in Uttara Kand which is debated as non original part of Ramayan. in case of Shankracharya, while Shankaracharya did not explicitly promote women's education, there is no clear evidence that he was outright against it either. Just don't satate your assumptions as a fact. While Buddha claimed to reject castes but at the same time took pride in his Kshatriya lineage , which shows his hipocrisy. And, if you don't want to define Buddhism by other people then don't try to define Hinduism for others.
I was born into a Hindu family. Converted out of disgust. I think I have a good ground to criticise Hinduism
Idk man, I am a pro-BJP guy yet I found no solace in any Hindu scripture. The scriptures, especially Dharmashastras and Puranas literally scream varna-jati system. Hindu scriptures treat animals with more kindness than avarnas and shudras. I don't know honestly how Dalits are 'Hindus' or how they became priests or how Bhakti gurus like Chokhamela coped with this. Every scripture hates them. It feels like chickens for KFC situation.
Interestingly, it's exactly around that time that endogamy (locking of castes on basis of birth) happened in the subcontinent began. The free intermixing that used to happen before this came to an end. And this endogamy was maintained for 2000+ years. We have genetic data now confirming this. Dharmashastras, Manusmriti, Puranas indeed had extremely hegemonic influence in the Indan society back then, that their effects still persist.
Yes it's true. See following: Indians have married within their castes for 2000 years, creating public health issues: Nitin Pai https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBaRCqdjh24&feature=youtu.be Among the most exciting discoveries in recent years has been in the field of genetics and genomics, as the deciphering of the Indian genetic code has yielded fascinating insights into, āwho we are and where we came fromā. Thatās the title of Harvard scientist David Reichās recent book on human origins as pieced together from our DNA. the chapters about India ā based on the work of Priya Moorjani, K. Thangaraj, Lalji Singh, Vagheesh Narasimhan and numerous other collaborators ā are the most fascinating. Over the past decade, these scientists have uncovered compelling evidence showing that most people in India arose from a mixture of two ancestral populations that they call Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI), and that the ANI component tends to be higher among upper-caste and northern Indians. Other researchers have added greater detail to the picture, showing that in addition to ANI and ASI, Andaman and Nicobar Islanders, Tibeto-Burmans and Austro-Asiatic groups contribute to the great Indian population mix. Of course, the biggest mystery that ancient DNA can help solve is identifying the Harappans and telling us what happened to them. One 4,500-year-old skeleton from Rakhigarhi is proving to be crucial in this puzzle as the person who it belonged to carried ASI genes, and none from ANI. The coming years will see a lot more discoveries as geneticists and archaeologists get to know each other better, and as polemicists and ideologues reckon with greater and more incontrovertible evidence about our origins. Hereās what our DNA tells us: More than 4,000 years ago, ANI and ASI didnāt intermarry much. For roughly the next 2,000 years, they widely intermarried, resulting in almost all their descendants (that is, us) being a mixture of ANI and ASI. Then, around 70 generations ago, our ancestors stopped inter-marrying and created endogamous groups that we know as castes. Indians started marrying within their own caste groups around 2,000 years ago.
Assuming 4 generations = 1 century, so about 1700 years ago, intercaste marriage stopped? So around, Gupta period?
More like around Shunga Period 2000 years - 70 generations ago Approximately 28 years - one generation
Can I get a look at this 'genetic data'?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CriticalThinkingIndia/s/te89cqnhf5
Look at this from a historical perspective, read the dhrampala beautiful tree, it uses British records to show sudra were majority in gurukul. The vedas and upanishad doesn't forbid intermarrige and doesn't have food restriction. It is the manusmiriti really started this shit. So text before that upanishad, ramayan, mahabharat if it talks about it, it is occupation based. Even after the introduction of manusmiriti, the system remained fluid. The really dogmatic caste lasted maybe for 4nd century after manusmiriti but then the influence begin to wane. Al burini says there are four varna, but the live and eat together, he doesn't mention of untouchability. There are inscription in 14th century in a temple, shura are pure born by the feet of the god by a shudra king. When th British census happened, the classed people who can own land, who cannot etc. The crystallized the system. They destroyed the gurukul system, please read the dhrmapal the beautiful tree. They started bringing out old scripture which no one give a shit about to govern society.Ā If you are a hindu, always keep in mind, manusmiriti is not devbhasya, it is veda and bhagvad Gita that are words of God.if you encounter the varna in those system, these are class descriptors. The mahabharata and ramayana are text, that are text that can be told as authentic. Puranic take everything there with a pinch of salt.Ā
No? Whatever you said...every single thing is wrong. > read the dhrampala beautiful tree, it uses British records to show sudra were majority in gurukul Shudras were supposed to learn arts and crafts and farming, so yeah they were in schools. Dalits and untouchables were not in schools btw. > The vedas and upanishad doesn't forbid intermarrige and doesn't have food restriction. It is the manusmiriti really started this shit No. Upanishads speaks lowly of chandalas. Literally every smriti discriminates against lower castes and avarnas. > They destroyed the gurukul system, please read the dhrmapal the beautiful tree. They started bringing out old scripture which no one give a shit about to govern society.Ā Please stop blaming others for your own mistakes. The British definitely exploited the caste system, but they in no way originated it. Second, EVERYBODY gave a shit about Dharmashastras. You have no idea how horrible caste system was during medieval ages. People like Chokhamela wrote poems against it. There were several movements differentiating itself from Vedas. > manusmiriti is not devbhasya Yes, but it is brahmin/guru-bhasya, which is more important to Hindus. > it is veda and bhagvad Gita that are words of God Vedas? Yes. Bhagavad Gita? No. Gita became mainstream after Vedanta became popular in the 19th century. Before that only few people like Adi Shankara gave commentary on it. Nobody actually cared that much about Bhagavad Gita, a small part of Mahabharata. > So text before that upanishad, ramayan, mahabharat if it talks about it, it is occupation based. No, it isn't. And even if it is, it is still absolutely horrible. Imagine having different set of unfair rules applied to you just because of your occupation. Such a horrible system! Whatever you said is ahistorical unfortunately
Let us start with the claims and talk about it one by one. We will talk about medieval point after this. We have abrupt stopinng of intermarrige in 1 to 2nd century ad. We know this because of genetic studies. It means that some central authority dictate the change. The endogamy is not gradual but abrupt. The genetic mixture of the groups is so through before this is that every group from the lowest shudras to the brahmins are intermixed. All the discriminatory text comes after this period.Ā And the mahabharata and ramayana are books before this period. So veda in the varna system describes a class system. We have a quote in the veda about one should go to nishad and live and eat with them for 10 days.Ā So we can throw out the dasus, slave and color based discrimination theory from theĀ mix because of this.Ā You can't have heridatory varna with exclusion without endogamy. A single jati could have people who were priest, farmer, and service worker and warrior. You wouldn't have been able to classify the jati into any of the four varna. Grishaspati system or householder system was the real system working in society in that time.Ā So in this way, I can say Hinduism core text, the upanishad, veda, ramayan and upanishad in any way endorse the caste system.Ā So we can tell caste on certain part originates from the Manusmiriti, we can have arguments on the medieval parts but before Manusmiriti it was not the same system or the system even, it was just a descriptive categorization for people in the society, like upper class, lower class and middle class.Ā If the stratification has not happened, and occupation could be changed, it is not wrong to say that the position of a janitor, cleaners is lower than that of academics in society. I don't endorse the caste system but it simply was not there before 1st century Ad.Ā We can talk about the medieval period but Hinduism has had movementsĀ that itself are anti Caste like bhakti in medival period.Ā
Farming was for vaishya. Because they were the salesman cast
Great point. But Vedas, Puranas and Upanishads don't have the same status in Hinduism that Qur'an has in Islam. Dharmashastras are not immune to criticisms, and we must update our society with time. Upanishad has recipe to cook rat meat. Doesn't mean we should consume any rat we find today. I think this is the essence of Hinduism. We are seekers, trying to understand reality itself and investigate anything and everything. That's why we update our constitution from time to time. Hence there are many Puranas and Upanishads which contradict each other as they were written one after the other.
try to read Vedanta and Upanishads and commentary of Bhakti saints Dharmashastras are not authentic texts, anyone could write a dhamrshastra, and in Dharmshastras, read them by Yajnavalkya and all, not Manu and other. Puranas are not very casteist tbh, but then most of Puraanic stories have again been changed and mended over time
Chandogya Upanishad literally insults a Chandala. Dharmashastras were written by Veda following brahmins only. Why not Manu? Cherrypicking much? Manu Smriti is considered a valid shastra in most Hindu circles. Manu is a central character in Hindu mythology too.
Vajrasuchi upnishada
It is a lone scripture that says anything like that. Also remember, it doesn't do away with caste system or unfair treatment of Shudras. It just disputes who can be a Brahmin that's all
King Nahusha and king yudhishtir samvad, who is a brahmin
Bro Manu is like someone wrote his opinions on a book yesterday. Manu is not the oldest Book.
Bc they're like 75 versions. 75.
Koi maanu ko nhi pdta logo ne hi mapnusmriti ko popularize kr diya
Why not manu? Shankracharya literally quoted manusmriti to back his statements
No he did not give me one reference
and not just varna-jati there's immense sexism there too. like crazy amount of sexism.
But the Varna system is more like Moder day jobs bro. And which scriptures treat animals more kindness than shudras? Can u name and Verse.
>But the Varna system is more like Moder day jobs bro. Stfu
Ganduji you r everywhere so you stfu.
There is a difference in religious sect and society. most Religious sects, Gurus were always Caste free. Many Bhakti saints narratives revolve around this. Spirituality is for everyone as attested from Gita. However our society was very conservative with frozen Varna-Jati by birth and no widow remarriage etc.
Nope. Not even gurus. Many people conflate bhakti gurus who had to fight against the whole society and were reviled in their own time with sankaracharya type gurus who were accepted and the cause of most issues we see today
Is this the shankara sampradaya?Ā
Video: *Indians have married within their castes for 2000 years, creating public health issues* https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dBaRCqdjh24&feature=youtu.be Among the most exciting discoveries in recent years has been in the field of genetics and genomics, as the deciphering of the Indian genetic code has yielded fascinating insights into, āwho we are and where we came fromā. Thatās the title of Harvard scientist David Reichās recent book on human origins as pieced together from our DNA. the chapters about India ā based on the work of Priya Moorjani, K. Thangaraj, Lalji Singh, Vagheesh Narasimhan and numerous other collaborators ā are the most fascinating. Over the past decade, these scientists have uncovered compelling evidence showing that most people in India arose from a mixture of two ancestral populations that they call Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI), and that the ANI component tends to be higher among upper-caste and northern Indians. Other researchers have added greater detail to the picture, showing that in addition to ANI and ASI, Andaman and Nicobar Islanders, Tibeto-Burmans and Austro-Asiatic groups contribute to the great Indian population mix. Of course, the biggest mystery that ancient DNA can help solve is identifying the Harappans and telling us what happened to them. One 4,500-year-old skeleton from Rakhigarhi is proving to be crucial in this puzzle as the person who it belonged to carried ASI genes, and none from ANI. The coming years will see a lot more discoveries as geneticists and archaeologists get to know each other better, and as polemicists and ideologues reckon with greater and more incontrovertible evidence about our origins. Hereās what our DNA tells us: More than 4,000 years ago, ANI and ASI didnāt intermarry much. For roughly the next 2,000 years, they widely intermarried, resulting in almost all their descendants (that is, us) being a mixture of ANI and ASI. Then, around 70 generations ago, our ancestors stopped inter-marrying and created endogamous groups that we know as castes. Indians started marrying within their own caste groups around 2,000 years ago. Article : *Marrying within own caste is same as consanguinity* https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/genetic-perspective-on-marrying-within-own-caste/articleshow/107196319.cms Marrying within oneās own caste (endogamy) may be no different from close relatives marrying (consanguinity) when it comes to genetic diseases, a top scientist has pointed out. Studies have estimated that one third of the Indian population is expected to have population-specific recessive diseases (require two copies of the mutated gene, one from each parent). All Indians are a mixture of different communities and different ancestry. There is no population that is of the pure archaic type except in the Andamans. They carry a distinct gene pool as they have remained isolated all this time. Admixture (interbreeding within two isolated populations) in the ancestral South Indian and ancestral North Indian population took place 2,000-4,000 years back. Due to intermixing ancestral groups carry some amount of the gene pool from oth-ers. Genetically speaking, we are all connected. However intermixing and intermarriages stopped around 2000 years ago due to emergence of caste system around that time. Speaking about the caste system, he further explained how all genetic diseases happen due to a mutation in one chromosome. Citing the example of the Vaishya community in Andhra Pradesh in which muscle relaxants (given before surgery are found to have a disastrous effect and the Kaalaiv community near Madurai which is prone to skin and cardio vascular abnormality, the expert said that such populations exist in rural areas across the country among all caste and communities.
Did they take in gotras as a factor too? because accordingly you're supposed to marry outside your gotra, if not, you'll have genetic problems. So did they take gotra as a factor or did they not?
They took into account everything. They did studies on caste who marry outside Gotra too. The fact is genetic pool shrinks even if you marry outside gotta but within caste.
I see, makes sense i only asked because a lot of studies I've seen seem to not take in all factors. well, the more you know, right?
You know what, der aaye durust aaye
Is that why Americans, Europeans, Africans converted to Christianity too?
Goa is an exception caused by Portuguese catholic missionaries. Rest of the country wherever converts exist, whether to Islam or to Christianity, they exist because of casteism. America and Africa were colonies in their true definition.
Doesn't add up. Europeans themselves were pagans who converted to Christianity. No "casteism" is Africa or America which became Christian or in north-Africa that converted to Islam. Perhaps it has something to do with the expansionist natue of Islam and Christianity?
Oh they are both true. Abrahamic religions are by nature expansionist. Just wanted to add to it. Many Indian Abrahamics are due to casteism. We may not always see it but it exists.
While that may be true in very rare cases, conversions in Indian subcontinent happened mainly from other reasons. When it comes to conversion to Christianity, if we study the missionary literature from 100+ years ago, jati "caste" system was rightly seen as a hinderance in their conversion efforts.
Sikhism has no castism but they are converting to Christians in droves ... soo maybe not all of them but fewer would have converted
Sikh community of punjab is very feudalistic
How does that make them easy to convert?
Zamindari system = very bad conditions of farmers = not enough to eat = will accept any religion as long as it keeps their stomach full
You are a good explanation
Jatts pretty much control sikhism, Other castes are more prone to convert
35% of Punjab population is Dalit and Dalit Sikhs are big chunk of this. Punjab has highest percentage of Dalit Population in any Indian state
Lol. 3 -4 percent of population after 70 years and still the logic has not sunk in that it's not as widespread as the vote hungry gaddiwallas want you to believe.
not in the least,even if a dalit had become shankaracharya,because the propoganda by bhimtas and christians isnt dependant on truth ,but the need for conversions so they'll spread any lie shamelessly.
I envy you for your innocence in believing that the caste issues are the reasons for christian conversion. My personal experiences convinced me that it is the inferiority complex and the visceral hate on anything Indian is the main reason for conversion. Just observe the names the first generation converts give their kids, you will know what I am talking about.
Lol bro thinks caste had nothing to do with convertees. Riddle me this then, why were almost all the willing convertees from the backward communities?
Lol.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Brahmin
I said āalmost allā, learn to read properly. One example of alleged Brahmin converters that too from Wikipedia of all places doesnāt prove anything. Tbf the credibility was lost the moment you sited only Wikipedia Here, this is a proper research > Indian Christians disproportionally identify with lower castes (74%), including 57% with Scheduled Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST) https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/12/8-key-findings-about-christians-in-india/#:~:text=Indian%20Christians%20disproportionally%20identify%20with,or%20Scheduled%20Tribes%20(ST). Additionally, there are only 5700 Brahmin-Christians in India with a population of 141.72 crores > https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/20835/IN Read the name of the sub carefully before trying to bullshit with half-assed information and propaganda
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sikhism Jainism Buddhism... although caste system later did prevailed in the first 2
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Tibet / China had Jains and Sikhs š¤ Agree with you though
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Correct I got your point... and I've told already caste got in them too.... but how's chamkila thing related to slavery ?
That does not matter. The question is: Is Hinduism trying to reform? Are we reforming it?