14 ms·

For what it's worth, caste has fortunately ceased to have meaning in a tiny number of social and geographic circles. But upper castes are in denial about how c

For what it's worth, caste has fortunately ceased to have meaning in a tiny number of social and geographic circles. But upper castes are in denial about how caste plays out in the rest of India. They will claim it was something in the past. Wrong. Upper castes still often whisper about so and so being a *** (impolite way of referring to someone of a lower caste), or about such and such work (e.g. cleaning dishes) being the work of a *** and not a Brahmin like themselves. Some now claim that caste was created by the British. Wrong. Al Biruni (traveler from Persia) in 1020 wrote in Tarikh Al-Hind (History of India) about how when there was a communal meal in the village, a barrier needed to be put up between people of lower castes and people of upper castes. My own personal experiences with caste (as someone exposed to it very late in life) were described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31035615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31035615

conductr 4y ago
It will take many generations to culturally "forget" about it. Similar to race in the USA. The movements/laws/wokeness to help move things in the right direction are all good and needed (don't get me wrong) but the cultural part of growing up hearing how your parents/grandparents talk about other people and whatnot in a private setting means that the issues will persist for some time.
gamblor956 4y ago
I've always thought it interesting that Brahmins are still considered to be the "upper" caste, considering that their caste position historically owed entirely to their caste devoting itself purely to religious worship, forswearing material possessions and comforts. A rich Brahmin is, therefore by definition, not a Brahmin...and should be regarded as an outcaste and shunned. And that's exactly what I tell them when they judge me for not having a caste.
- dalpat2023 4y ago
  [flagged]
- unmole 4y ago
  > forswearing material possessions and comforts. You're describing a sanyasin. A typical Brahmin, like anyone else is recommended to go through the usual stages of life including that of a Grihastha. And as a Grihastha, one is expected to pursue wealth and material wellbeing. I'm all for telling off casteist scum but it probably helps to be accurate.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    If you want to be technical about it, the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage, surviving by begging, through payment for religious services performed, or royal succor. (https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc200103.html https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-...) A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin.
    - unmole 4y ago
      I'm sorry, what? > the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage, You linked to the section that specifically prescribes conduct during the Grihastha stage. That contradicts your assertion that Brahmins are supposed to skip the Grihastha stage. > A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin. The very section you linked to says He shall be either one possessing a granary full of grains. Accumulation of wealth is explicitly allowed.
      - gamblor956 4y ago
        I can see that reading comprehension is hard for you. The full page notes: "‘Four kinds of livelihood for householders have been described by the wise—the first is the possessing of a granary-full of grains; then the possessing of a jar-full of grains; then the possessing of not enough for the morrow; and the last is the method of the pigeon (having nothing beyond the present meal); among these the following is superior to the preceding.’ If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage. If you define this to mean the stage of one's life where material wealth is accumluated, then you would be correct that Brahmins pass through this stage, but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit. Therefore, by definition, a Brahmin as historically defined cannot be wealthy, anymore than a Catholic priest can bear children and still call themselves a priest.
- deskamess 4y ago
  > they judge me for not having a caste. Are you serious? They got upset they could not pigeon hole you? Damn.
dalpat2023 4y ago
[flagged]

conductr 4y ago

It will take many generations to culturally "forget" about it. Similar to race in the USA. The movements/laws/wokeness to help move things in the right direction are all good and needed (don't get me wrong) but the cultural part of growing up hearing how your parents/grandparents talk about other people and whatnot in a private setting means that the issues will persist for some time.

gamblor956 4y ago

I've always thought it interesting that Brahmins are still considered to be the "upper" caste, considering that their caste position historically owed entirely to their caste devoting itself purely to religious worship, forswearing material possessions and comforts. A rich Brahmin is, therefore by definition, not a Brahmin...and should be regarded as an outcaste and shunned. And that's exactly what I tell them when they judge me for not having a caste.

dalpat2023 4y ago
[flagged]
unmole 4y ago
> forswearing material possessions and comforts. You're describing a sanyasin. A typical Brahmin, like anyone else is recommended to go through the usual stages of life including that of a Grihastha. And as a Grihastha, one is expected to pursue wealth and material wellbeing. I'm all for telling off casteist scum but it probably helps to be accurate.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  If you want to be technical about it, the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage, surviving by begging, through payment for religious services performed, or royal succor. (https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc200103.html https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-...) A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin.
  - unmole 4y ago
    I'm sorry, what? > the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage, You linked to the section that specifically prescribes conduct during the Grihastha stage. That contradicts your assertion that Brahmins are supposed to skip the Grihastha stage. > A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin. The very section you linked to says He shall be either one possessing a granary full of grains. Accumulation of wealth is explicitly allowed.
    - gamblor956 4y ago
      I can see that reading comprehension is hard for you. The full page notes: "‘Four kinds of livelihood for householders have been described by the wise—the first is the possessing of a granary-full of grains; then the possessing of a jar-full of grains; then the possessing of not enough for the morrow; and the last is the method of the pigeon (having nothing beyond the present meal); among these the following is superior to the preceding.’ If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage. If you define this to mean the stage of one's life where material wealth is accumluated, then you would be correct that Brahmins pass through this stage, but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit. Therefore, by definition, a Brahmin as historically defined cannot be wealthy, anymore than a Catholic priest can bear children and still call themselves a priest.
deskamess 4y ago
> they judge me for not having a caste. Are you serious? They got upset they could not pigeon hole you? Damn.

dalpat2023 4y ago

[flagged]