This distinctions are for only you and me. You think amoing the upper castes the fine lines were discussed that way? hell the only people who knew Sanskrit were limited upper catste people. 'according to scripture each man has a role and place-inevitably determined by birth'. I wonder from which part of the body a computer scientist is supposed to be from.
Hence attack the social structure - they are external to the Shruti and Shruti commentaries (upanishads).
You can't lump Hinduism into one construct and try to bring it all down.
Tell me if any abrahamic faiths even remotely accept that elements of theirs were human made/written constructs? Everything is divinely revealed or presented as an unquestionable narrative of ultimate truth.
Hinduism never had a council of Nicaea where a consolidated censorship and narrative was established for Christianity (after witnessing how various other Monotheistic religions including Judaism were split by civil war stemming from conflicting religious interpretation of even the straight and narrow path to ultimate salvation). But that did nothing for them in the long run......though it would probably have been even worse had such things like the gospel of Judah, coptic, ethiopian and armenian versions of christianity come into contact with whatever mainstream christianity was being practiced at the time. Not to mention a massive schism in Christianity after crusaders butchered fellow Christians in Constantinople under orders from the Western pope....
I can keep going on about this, but the basic reality is that Hinduism is much more open to internal self-reform (of its dogma) than any of the abrahamic faiths and always has been. How else do you explain the rise of Puranic systems to take dominance over the earlier strict vedic based system...the clear establishment yet coexistence of dvaita and advaita and even "nastik" systems like carvaka and later Buddhism...all having their own influences back onto the parent streams as well?
Please show me which Abrahamic religion has the coexistence of polytheistic, monotheistic, monist, agnostic and even atheistic streams of philosophy?
Social constructs through conceited power structures (and the continual short-term human desire to perpetuate them) exist worldwide and flourish when there is no education. You want to know about the scavenging class and peasantry of Europe before the industrial revolution? You want me to put quotes from many European philosophers, revered today because of certain works.....as to what they wrote in other works....what they thought of lower classes and what they thought their fates should be - and how this mentality perpetuated in things like eugenics and ultimately an exceedingly abhorrent version of fascism espoused by that man with the funny moustache smack bang in the middle of the 20th century?
There is no magical perfect society when there was no massive education. It literally came down to where was the situation the most dire and pressing for revolution given the close proximity of many nation states with no big strategic depth along with massive rivalry and just enough chaos and "luck" compared to other parts of the world to forment the revolutions that would ultimately lead to mass education and liberation of society and later economic development from the rigorous hierachies imposed by monarchies and clergies before them.
So criticizing Hinduism through a biased prism of what it is as a "religion" when it really is not a religion to begin with (in the western sense of dogmatic salvation) basically opens up the debate to completely rip to shreds every other belief structure out there many magnitudes more....and I am being quite conservative here since I dont want to overstep various sensitivities present on this forum (as I have already done and got banned).
This is not the forum really for that sort of discussion to be "all out". But trust me when I say the negative labels that have been given to non-Hindus to its very fabric come from various warped perspectives made in very fragile glass houses.
We will solve our real social problems on our terms, not any other....because they do not even understand it in the first place.
....once a guy becomes a PM, he is employee of the state. He is to be led by constitution and his responsibility is for policy, cabinet secy is responsible for execution. That is the only difference. If you can allow him his rigt to bring in RSS workers, you should allow said secy to have his say too.
)
