Quote:
Originally Posted by sisterX  Hinduism is the one and only religion in this world which has a documented concept of "Occhut" (Untouchables). It is the only religion in this world which spread racism directly by scripture, and by preachers. Those 'untouchable Dalits' who has been considered as 'slaves' by Aryans, are, no doubt, the most pitiable victims of the "wonderful" Hindu religion.. |
Hinduism did not have slavery to the rampant scale as islam had, but still, the concept of untouchability ,which is not sanctioned by the vedas, is a blot on hinduism. However these so-called untouchables were free men too, with their own rights, though they did not have as many rights as the upper castes had. It is same like the peasants in other nations, like the serfs. And the scriptured too states that they too could become brahmins or kshatriyas if they possessed the necessary talents. The shudra was allowed to kill a brahmin in self-defence too, according to the scriptures, and he incurred no sin in doing so.
It is a fact that more than 70 per cent of the ancient Hindu Rishis, or enlightened masters of India, belonged to the lower castes.
Valmiki and Vyasa , who wrote the epics Ramayana and Mahabharatha respectively, belonged to the lower castes.
In ancient times , one's caste was determined by one's temperament, talents and inclinations. Caste was not a barrier to the lower caste people, who rose to the level of the upper castes through their talents.
This was the reason why Kshatriyas like the Buddha and Vishwamitra , became Brahmins or men of spiritual nature and why a Brahmin like Parashurama became a Kshatriya.
This is also the reason why shudras or low caste people like Valmiki , Vyasa, Vasishtha, Narada, Drona, Karna ,Thiruvalluvar were raised to the position of a Brahmin or Kshatriya , in virtue or their superior learning or valour.
In the manu smriti , when it comes to stance of hereditary caste system, the verse below is believed to sanction support for vocational non-hereditary caste system.
"As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a Vaishya or a Kshatriya" (X: 65)
Paramahansa Yogananda also opposed what he called to the un-Vedic caste system as we know it today. He taught that the caste system originated in a higher age, but became degraded through ignorance and self-interest. Yogananda said:
"These were (originally) symbolic designations of the stages of spiritual refinement. They were not intended as social categories. And they were not intended to be hereditary. Things changed as the yugas [cycles of time] descended toward mental darkness. People in the higher castes wanted to make sure their children were accepted as members of their own caste. Thus, ego-identification caused them to freeze the ancient classifications into what is called the ‘caste system.’ Such was not the original intention. In obvious fact, however, the offspring of a brahmin may be a sudra by nature. And a peasant, sometimes, is a real saint.”"
—from Conversations with Yogananda, Crystal Clarity Publishers, 2003.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sisterX Ramayan and mahabharat also mentioned about slaves. In an incident of Ramayana, you find Raja Ram meeting with slave community (Dhibor Das) who lived by the bay of Ganges. They used to live their life by fishing, hunting and collecting fruits in near by jungles. . |
These guys were not slaves at all , but were a shudra caste , who were not at all under anyone,as can be seen by their occupations. One of them offered fruits to Prince Rama, who hugged him warmly in return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sisterX
It is quite interesting to note that there is a lot of evidence that slaves were being kept in the palace of Ram and Kaikeyi. (BUT SURPRISINGLY THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE EVIDENCE OF KEEPING SLAVES in the royal mansion of Ravan in Lanka.) We also find a very clear indication of a well-established slave-based Hindu society in Mahabharat .
|
It is quite clear to me that you got this nonsense from an untrained western pseudo-scholar, or an Indian who have not studied the scriptures.
You state above that slaves were there in Rams palace , but not there in ravans mansion.
Ravan was a hindu himself, a brahmana, who was the son of a brahmana himself, and he had also mastered the vedas at his youth, and was a devotee of Shiva.
Ravana is a brahmana , while Rama belongs to the kshatriya caste, which is a lower caste to the brahmana.
It is like stating that there is slavery in certain areas of hinduism, and there are not ,in other areas of hinduism.
Ravana is a classic example of a great warrior and king, who was corrupted by his own power, which made him overstep his moral code of conduct and perpetrate excesses.
The exiled prince Rama fought against Ravana in combat , and killed him in a classic battle. Though the whole of ravanas kingdom was Rama's now, he restored it to ravanas brother Vibhishana, and treated ravana' wife with generosity and kindness, and returned back to his own kingdom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sisterX
Islam is a beautiful fair and just religion which gave rights to those who had NO rights.
|
Complete opposite.
Islam is a religion
which treated ladies indecently and enslaved the men of other religions too , on the sole reason that these ladies and men were unbelievers