paturi@harvard.UUCP (Ramamohan Paturi) (01/07/86)
From paturi@harvard.HARVARD.EDU.ARPA (Ramamohan Paturi):
Some Ideas from India
---- ----- ---- -----
The following is taken from "A source book in Indian Philosophy"
(S. Radhakrishnan and C. A. Moore).
Manu's code (???? BC) gives detailed instructions regarding the then social
rules and practices in India. It believes in the fourfold order
of society as a means of social cooperation for the common good. Each one has
to perform the function for which his nature best suits him. The following are
the duties of Sudras who form the fourth group according to the caste system
(brahmin, ksatriya, vaisya and sudra in that order).
DUTIES OF SUDRAS
... to serve brahmins (who are) learned in Vedas, house-holders, and
famous (for virtue) is the highest duty of a sudra, which leads to
beatitude.
(A sudra who is) pure, the servant of his betters, gentle in his
speech, and free from pride, and always seeks a refuge with brahmins
attains (in his next life) a higher caste.
But a sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do servile
work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to be the
slave of a brahmin.
A sudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released from servi-
tude; since that is innate in him, who can set him free from it?
If a sudra, (unable to subsist by serving brahmins), seeks a livelihood,
he may serve ksatriyas, or he may also seek to maintain himself by attending
on a wealthy vaisya.
But let a (sudra) serve brahmins, either for the sake of heaven, or
with a view to both (this life and next); for he who is called the
servant of a brahmin thereby gains all his ends.
The service of brahmins alone is declared (to be) an excellent
occupation of a sudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform
will bear him no fruit.
A sudra can not commit an offence, causing loss of caste, and he is
not worthy to receive the sacraments; he has no right to (fulfill) the
sacred law (of the Aryans, yet) there is no prohibition against
(his fulfilling certain portions of) the law.
(Sudras) who are desirous to gain merit, and know (their) duty, commit no
sin, but gain praise, if they imitate the practic of virtuous men without
reciting sacred texts.
The more a (sudra), keeping himself free from envy, imitates the behaviour
of the virtuous, the more he gains, without being censured, (exaltation in)
this world and the next.murali@think.ARPA (Muralidhara Subbarao) (01/08/86)
> From paturi@harvard.HARVARD.EDU.ARPA (Ramamohan Paturi): > > Some Ideas from India > ---- ----- ---- ----- > > The following is taken from "A source book in Indian Philosophy" > (S. Radhakrishnan and C. A. Moore). > > Manu's code (???? BC) gives detailed instructions regarding the then social > rules and practices in India. It believes in the fourfold order > of society as a means of social cooperation for the common > good. Each one has > to perform the function for which his nature best suits him. > The following are > the duties of Sudras who form the fourth group according to the caste system > (brahmin, ksatriya, vaisya and sudra in that order). > > > DUTIES OF SUDRAS > > ................... > But a sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do servile > work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to be the > slave of a brahmin. > .................. > The service of brahmins alone is declared (to be) an excellent > occupation of a sudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform > will bear him no fruit. This is a clarification for the above letter, lest those who do not know about Hinduisim and the current Indian society think that Manu's code is endorsed by Hinduisim and is being practised in India. Unlike many religions (like Christianity, Islam,..,etc.) Hinduism DOES NOT HAVE one specific scripture which is considered to be the ultimate authority on Hinduism. In some sense, the Bhagavat Gita is an epitome of the principles of Hinduism. According to Bhagavat Gita one can attain God in four ways: (i) Gnana Yoga (pursuit of knowledge or truth; includes dedication to music, art, science literature and anything that can be considered as pursuit of knowledge) (ii) Karma Yoga (Good deeds, dedication to a good cause, etc.) (iii) Bhakti Yoga (complete faith in and submission to God) (iv) Dhyana Yoga (penance, self discipline, ritual ceremonies, etc.) Of the above four ways, it is acknowledged by God himself that Bhakti Yoga is the supreme way to attain him. However, if one choses Gnana Yoga or Karma Yoga, one need not, theoretically, believe in God (so the atheist Scientists and Social workers are saved from hell :-) ). The point I am trying to make is that Hinduism does not preach caste system or social classes; it is all the creation of those who practised it which is gradually fading away. There are many popular folklore legends of Sudras (the lowest social class according to Manu's code) having attained God without the mediation of Brahmins and sometimes inspite of the intervention of Brahmins (e.g.: Kanakadasa of Karnataka). Some examples that come to my mind are `Bhakta Kumbara', `Bedara Kannappa', etc. in South India; Of course there a lot more examples which I am not aware of. My personal interpretation of Hinduism is that one should act according to ones conscience. Hinduism is nothing more and nothing less. According to this, lots of "good" Christians, Moslems,..,etc. are Hindus. As for those who do not know about the modern India, be assured that it is a secular state which forbids descrimination on the basis of race, religion, social class or sex. For all practical purposes, caste does not affect a lay man except to a small extent in villages. More than 95% of the people have probably not even heard of Manu's code. So, unless you are a student of the study of "Vedic India" you can safely forget all about Manu's code. murali.
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (01/08/86)
>> From paturi@harvard.HARVARD.EDU.ARPA (Ramamohan Paturi): >> >> Some Ideas from India >> ---- ----- ---- ----- >> >> The following is taken from "A source book in Indian Philosophy" >> (S. Radhakrishnan and C. A. Moore). >> >> Manu's code (???? BC) gives detailed instructions regarding the then social >> rules and practices in India. It believes in the fourfold order >> of society as a means of social cooperation for the common >> good. Each one has >> to perform the function for which his nature best suits him. >> The following are >> the duties of Sudras who form the fourth group according to the caste system >> (brahmin, ksatriya, vaisya and sudra in that order). > > So, unless you are a student of the study of "Vedic India" >you can safely forget all about Manu's code. > > murali. Not quite, since it formed the basis for many prejudices and customs that are only recently disappearing. But I agree fully with you that the original posting should have emphasized the position of Manu's nonsense in Hindu philosophy and coda and also its credibility and applicability at the present time. Especially since it was widely cross-posted and people with relatively little knowledge of India would be reading it. - raghu ramakrishnan
sankar@Shasta.ARPA (01/08/86)
> My personal interpretation of Hinduism is that one should > act according to ones conscience. Hinduism is nothing more > and nothing less. According to this, lots of "good" > Christians, Moslems,..,etc. are Hindus Fully agree Sriram.
venkat@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Venkat P Rangan) (01/10/86)
> From paturi@harvard.HARVARD.EDU.ARPA (Ramamohan Paturi): > > Some Ideas from India > ---- ----- ---- ----- > Manu's code (???? BC) gives detailed instructions regarding the then social > rules and practices in India. It believes in the fourfold order > of society as a means of social cooperation for the common > good. Here are some drastic surprises for those who do not know about Hinduism. This message is slightly long simply because a comprehensive essay, rather than than incoherent comments, must be the first introduction to people on other nets on what Hinduism is. There are two distinct aspects of Hinduism:- 1. Philosophy 2. Religion The foundations of the Philosophical aspect are:- 1. Do NOT accept anything you read in the scriptures or books without questioning vehemently even if it comes from such a learned person as Sage Suka. Accept it only and only if you come to the same conclusion after sufficient thought. (source: This is the first verse of the first Upanishad that a student of Hinduism reads. Sage Suka was a supposed to have been a great scholar at that time. Upanishads, are the highest scriptures of Upanishads. They form the final part and the culmination of the vedas and are called the Vedanta.) 2. UNLIKE several others, Hinduism does NOT attempt to give deductive definitions of God or any other being. It recognizes the futility of trying to define the Infinite in terms of the Finite. Hence only indicative pointers are given, suplimented with hints. It is the business of your intellect to come to any conclusion by induction cross examination. The hints are in the form of negations : Not This finite thing, Not That finite thing etc. 3. Each one is free to start his own cult of thinking. Hence we take pride in the thousands of Upanishads, thousands of cults. Each Upanishad was by a different person, simply because, he did not agree with some points of previous Upanishads. Many people point fingers at India, saying there are thousands of cults etc. They fail to recognize that Hinduism ideally expects each one to have his own cult, just like in any other science, each scientist has his own vision of the field he is in. 4.As a result, we do not have any ONNE GOD, ONNE SAVIOUR, ONNE BOOK, ONNE religious head to whom everyone must be subservient to, ONNE set of rules etc. There are thousands of each one of these in Hinduism. Anyone can become any of these. This is simply because, the moment you say ONNE, it cannot be Universal, Infinite, as ONNE implies there is something separate, other than it. The moment you say ONNE, there can be no independent thinking, no creative energy, no creative art or science. The absence of this in Hinduism is its extraordinary universality. Why else do you think India chose to remain secular at time of partition? Why else do you think Hinduism had such stalwarts as Mahatma Gandhi? 5. As a previous message stated, there are three general paths, namely, Karma, Bakthi, and Gnana. A human being is supposed to be composed of a Physical Body, emotional personality, and Intellectual strength. Karma, Bakthi, and Gnana correspond to these three aspects of human life. Again no one falls under only one of these. Usually it is a combination of all three, with special strengths in one of these. By the way, Bakthi DOES NOT correspond to going to temple and praying. It only means, if at any time you feel despondent in life, take refuge in the fact that Almighty has taken care of so many people. You will also be definitely taken care of. Praying is only a mechanism for cleansing your mind of past rememberences, just as a bath cleanses the body off old dirt. Lord Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita states that those who pursue Gnana, reasoning out everything through their intellectual instrument are the dearest to Him and NOT those of Bhakthi. He even says that Gnanis do not have nor need to obey any of the societies' rules simply because of their intellectual capacity to reason out every situation correctly. These will raise lot of eyebrows. Then why else is the caste system, dowry and so on in the Indian society? The answer lies when you come to the religious aspect:- The religious aspect is a set of practices which were for the convenience of the time at which they came into being. This is like the constitution. Just as a political system or the economic system changes, these social practices are supposed to be changed as the time and place changes. They are purely a matter of convenience and part of experimentation to find out what constitutes the best set of rules to guide the society. So Hindus do not fight over any of these. If you find something illogical, you just change it. So there is no fighting over going to temple 10 times a day or not going to temple at all. No fighting as to whether you must charge interest or not. No fighting as to whether you should not eat animal A's meat or animal B's meat or no meat at all. No fanatical fighting over whether dowry is good or not. The people who are responsible to change these are the intellectuals. They are the law makers i.e., the legislature. The kshatriyas were the executive and the judicial parts of the government. Ages ago the law making intellectuals were called Brahmins. Brahmin means, one who knows Brahman, one who pursues knowledge for its own sake that includes the knowledge of the Infinite substratum ( in gross terms, the laws of nature) that unifies the apparent diversity in the universe. It is the equivalent of the present day term, Scientist. Examples are too many for those who attempted to change the social set-up. Buddha, Mahaveera, Guru Nanak, and all those who dissected the social laws that were existing at their time, found fault with many of them, and changed them. But slowly, these law makers(the Brahmins) found a secret. Using recursion theorem, why not make themselves supreme so that they no more need to exercise themselves? The version of Manu's (Man's laws) laws that a previous message gave is an excellent example. This is not special to Brahmins or Hinduism. This happens in any system that has been endowed with laws of inertia into it by nature. Examples abound :- The usurping of economic power in the U.S. by a selected few, the usurping of political power in USSR by a selected few and so on. But the Hindu Scriptures are clear on these. The generation which does not come up with a set of rules is cheating both themselves and the future generations. The previously existing rules are there only to serve as the experience of the previous generations on which the present must build. Hence any criticism of Hinduism through caste etc. is null simply because it is like criticizing the Einsteinian laws if your present experimental set up to measure the speed of light does not work. To make it work, overhaul the set-up. Similarly, occasionally overhaul your social set-up. If evolution is impossible, try a revolution. As a rule, Hinduism has NO rules about the objective(=outer,gross) world. It only and only talks about the subjective (=subtle,inner) world. As a final piece of note to non-Indians who might think that Hinduism and India are lowered in prestige because of so many criticisms by Indians themselves, here is the culmination: One of the cardinal principles of Hinduism is that those who do NOT criticize it but merely accept are deluding themselves. They get nowhere. It is the vehement arguments and counter arguments that are encouraged and enrich Hinduism, merely because one more Intellect is adding his wisdom to Hinduism when he criticizes it. IF YOU DEVOTE SUFFICIENT INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY AND TIME, YOU CAN ADD YOUR OWN UPANISHAD TO THE EXISTING COLLECTION. This is one of the Greatest Strengths of Hinduism. So whether you are a Hindu or not, you can enrich it only by dissecting, arguing for or against every aspect of it !!!.
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (01/12/86)
The book, _A Guide to the World's Religion_ by David G. Bradley analyzes the twelve main faiths from the standpoint of their underlying concepts, philosophy, history, and current influence. As I read this remarkable book, I noted that the same deep ideas are found at the center of each religion. The names and symbols changed, but the essence remained. The differences among the many religions were largely superficial, centering largely on the historical circumstances whereby the eternal truths were first elucidated by the great thinkers and writers within a particular religion. One of the interesting differences among religions is the extent to which they are participatory. In some religions, the adherents are expected to form a mute and unquestioning audience for The Word. In others, the individual is encouraged to discover The Word through his own study and labor, and share his vision of it with others of his community. Personally, I prefer the latter approach. In this regard, I find Hinduism most commendable. I like Judaism for the same reason, because Judaism is not so much a religion as a debating society, much in the spirit of the Atheneum of the Greek Philosopers. In either case, it is an attempt to codify Common Sense. --Barry Kort
vasudev@decvax.UUCP (Vasudev Bhandarkar) (01/15/86)
As far as I know, Manu's laws go back only to ca 1000AD. -Vasudev
honavar@uwai.UUCP (Vasant Honavar) (01/15/86)
I found a posting from some one on net.religion.jewish saying that it was really an inappropriate place for lengthy articles on Hinduism or India and I tend to agree. I suggest that future postings on this and related topics be not directed to net.religion.jewish. In fact, it may be better to start a newsgroup net.religion.hinduism for postings directly pertaining to hinduism and not flood the other newsgroups with these articles. -- Vasant
arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) (01/16/86)
> I found a posting from some one on net.religion.jewish saying that > it was really an inappropriate place for lengthy articles on Hinduism or > India and I tend to agree. > > I suggest that future postings on this and related topics be not > directed to net.religion.jewish. In fact, it may be better to start > a newsgroup net.religion.hinduism for postings directly pertaining to > hinduism and not flood the other newsgroups with these articles. > > -- Vasant Here,here,...........well said. I couldn't quite understand the relevance of the laws of Manu to net.religion.jewish until one day it dawned on me that perhaps the great Jewish philosopher Maimonidies was called Manu in hindi. This naturally led to further speculation, like, "how would people in India have heard of Maimonidies -- did he have a summer home in New Delhi ?" and "Are the laws of Manu really just the Mishneh Torah under another name?". So I'm glad you cleared this whole thing up before all the speculation got out of hand. ari gross