[Xmca-l] A distinction concerning the differences on differences

[Annalisa Aguilar]

David, and venerable others,

In defense of myself to be juxtaposed with the injustices of caste in a thread that seems to have inflamed the list on matters of race, I feel a need to step forward to explain a few things that I understand on the matter of caste, and it's not comprehensive, as my knowledge is not deeply informed about caste.

While bypassing the controversy of the document in the thread about views on a question, about which seems to have upset so many, and likely that is not unjustified, I want to remind that the list has had long philosophical discussions as long as they are informed by science. We are capable of doing both.

I am certain that  my view is uninformed on caste, but I think that is because my experience is not having not been raised in a caste society and also that my understanding is shallow. At the same time it is not necessarily a wrong understanding for not being nuanced.

First of all Vedic is not Hindu. The Vedas are a text that has been passed down, but it is only historical happening that the Hindus are the inheritors of the Vedas. There are others who are not Hindu who look to the Vedas for inspiration and guidance who are not Hindu, as well.

My stance central to this discussion is that no one owns knowledge. No one has the inside track, or the right to keep knowledge from others who want it.

The Vedas are an ancient text, in two parts. The first is, to put it simply, a manual about living properly, something in a lot of ancient texts religious or otherwise. The first part is called the "karmakanda," meaning "the section pertaining to that which is worth doing." Karma being action, it has to do with performing right actions that are proper, as in appropriate in a society, and how one might gain through proper actions. A cookbook, in a sense. Do this and you will get that.

The second part of the Vedas is made up of texts that pertains to knowledge of the self. It is called the "jñanakanda," meaning "the section pertaining to that which is worth knowing." It is also called "Vedanta," which means "the end of the Vedas" Veda means "knowledge."

Every society and every culture has its own Vedas. For Americans, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are our Vedas, as well as our Bill of Rights. They are the texts by which we organize our society.

This second section of the Vedas is sometimes known as the Upanishads, a term which you might be more familiar. There are other texts not present in the Vedas that possess Vedanta topics, such as the Bhagavad Gita which appears in the middle of the epic tale of the Mahabharata.  Anything which pertains to the means of self knowledge is a Vedanta text. To know oneself is not solely a Vedic pursuit. That encouragement resides in many other texts and philosophies. We as westerners are most familiar of this aphorism from Greek philosophers. "Know thyself" So it tends to be a truth all humans can live by.

That which is true cannot be denied, otherwise it's not true.

As far as caste, it is topic that has been misunderstood, even possibly by the people who practice caste as a way of organizing society. There have been figures in the Vedas themselves, as well as the Puranas (folk tales of gods and their interactions with humans, not unlike Greek mythology), who move from the caste in which they were born, into another. This means caste is not intended to be cast in stone, pun intended. That there is movement between them, but this appears to happen infrequently, but it does happen.

I will accommodate for the fact that caste has been extremely hurtful to many, and I do not consider myself an apologist for caste.

Still, just as we have evangelists in our society who have the mind to be literal about the bible, there are going to be their counterparts in Hindu society holding to a literal interpretation of caste. That doesn't mean that such Hindus are Vedic per se, just as evangelists may not exactly be Christian, or more specifically, follow the ways of the historical Jesus.

As I understand it, caste was intended to be descriptive and not prescriptive. That there is variety in the dispositions of humans, and the notion of caste is meant to describe these differences. In every healthy society to best support the society these dispositions should be organized for the most optimum results. With this in mind, it was considered there are four divisions and for the society to function properly, these divisions balance each other out. These are: the division of educators and teachers, the division of law-makers and law-keepers, the division of wealth-creators, and the division of manual laborers (I'm not sure if this includes artists and musicians or not, but it might, as it has to do with working with the hands).

We see this in our own culture that it is failing because there is too much stress on wealth creation, i.e., capitalism. But if we look to *any* society these divisions exist. It is something of a truth. Even companies have these divisions.

The notion of duty in Vedic culture is something that we do not express to such a degree if comparing Hindu and western cultures. That's because in the West we stand behind our rights, not our duties. This may be an explanation as to why we have such reactive disdain for caste.

If caste are the rules (in those minds who subscribe to that) for how to play the game of life appropriately, then to do one's duty is to play the role into which you were born. Swim in your lane and do the best you can, and you will have lived a good life. I'm being descriptive, nothing else. I myself am unlikely to be a beneficiary of that system, as western women are considered the worst specimens of feminine expression.

With regard to varieties of disposition, the pantheon of Hindu gods is also an expression of what we might view as psychological variety. In Hindu culture one takes an "ishta devata" as one's personal god, with which one identifies, as a protector or as an example to live, in terms of self-conduct. Hinduism is not a one-size fits all kind of religion.

But let me disabuse that Hindu (a name that was foisted upon them from outsiders) is not Vedic.

So unlike what David seems to compart, I really do not know that much about Hinduism. I cannot be held accountable to speak for Hinduism or Hindus and much less so caste.

I might only share what little I know, and that's keeping in mind at all times that I'm not an authority, but I offer what I do to the list as a student of these topics, that's prettyy much it.

It does seem that ignorance has gotten the better of people. I now am starting to see that perhaps I have been considered on this list as someone I am not, at least by David. That may have a lot to do with cultural ignorance, from which I too may suffer. Don't we all?

We all come to know one another over the long journey, and not with a few steps.

Kind regards,

Annalisa












-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200623/1bd958b6/attachment.html