A while ago, I asked a few questions about the Hindu caste system, and got some good answers. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29363 Well, I’m back with one more.
Where, if anywhere, do non-Hindus fit in the caste system? Are we all Dalits, or is the general consensus “we ain’t touching that question with a 10-foot pole!”
Sua
Darn, I’m sorry that I missed that first thread. I have a pretty good theory on how the caste system got started in the first place. Heck, David Freidel told me it was worthy of investigation.
To answer your question here, I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that most people who aren’t Indian would not be treated as low caste individuals.
Here is the answer for which you thirst, or you can read the whole thing at:
http://www.hinduism.co.za/newpage8.htm
THE CASTE SYSTEM
(Brahman, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras)
In the Bhagavad Gita, Ch.4, Verse 13: the Lord says:
“The fourfold caste has been created by Me according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma;”
In the Bhagavad Gita, Ch.18, verse 40 the Lord says:
“There is no being on earth, or again in heaven among the gods, that is liberated from the three qualities born of Nature.”
Gita Ch. 18, V.41:
“Of Brahmanas, Kshtriyas and Vaishyas, as also the Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature.”
(Note: The word ‘GUNA’ in Vedanta means prakriti (Satwa,
Rajas and Tamas). The principle of caste system is not confined to any one country. It applies to all human beings of all races, in all countries. This Sanatan principle is eternal and is not subject to change. It remains unchanged in the past, in the present and in the future.)
The following explanation is from the Mahabharata-
Santi Parva- Section CLXXXVIII.
Brigu said, “… (The Creator created) human beings with their four divisions, viz., Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras. The complexion the Brahmanas obtained was white; that which the Kshatriyas obtained was red; that which the Vaisyas got was yellow; and that which was given to the Sudras was black.”
[The commentator explains that the words expressive of hue or colour really mean attributes. What is intended to be said is that the Brahmanas had the attribute of Goodness (Sattwa); the second order had the attribute of Passion (Rajas); the third got a mixture of the two, i.e., both goodness and passion (Sattwa and Rajas); while the lowest order got the remaining attribute, viz., Darkness (Tamas).].
Bharadwaja said, “If the distinction between the four orders of human beings be made by means only of colour (attribute), then it seems that all the four orders have been mingled together. Lust, wrath, fear, cupidity, grief, anxiety, hunger, toil,- possess and prevail over all men. How can men be distinguished by the possession of attributes?
The bodies of all men emit sweat, urine, faeces, phlegm, bile, and blood. How then can men be distributed into classes? Of mobile objects the number is infinite; the species also of immobile objects are innumerable. How then, can, objects of such very great diversity be distributed into classes?”
Brigu said,"There is really no distinction between the different orders. The whole world at first consisted of Brahmanas. Created equal by the Creator, men have in consequence of their acts, become distributed into different orders. They that became fond of indulging in desire and enjoying pleasures, possessed of the attributes of severity and wrath, endued with courage, and unmindful of the duties of piety and worship, - these Brahmanas possessing the attribute of Passion, - became Kshatriyas.
Those Brahmanas again who, without attending to the duties
laid down for them, became possessed of both the attributes of Goodness and Passion, and took to the professions of cattle-rearing and agriculture, became Vaisyas. Those Brahmanas again that became fond of untruth and injuring other creatures, possessed of cupidity, - engaged in all kinds of acts for a living, and fallen away from purity of behaviour, and thus wedded to the attribute of Darkness, became Sudras.
Separated by these occupations, Brahmanas, falling away from their own order, became members of the other three orders. All the four orders, therefore, have always the right to the performance of all pious duties and of sacrifices. Even thus were the four orders at first created equal by Brahma (the Creator) who ordained for all of them (the observances disclosed in) the words of Brahma (in the Vedas). Through cupidity alone, many fell away, and became possessed by ignorance.
The Brahmanas always devoted to the scriptures on Brahma; and mindful of vows and restraints, are capable of grasping the conception of Brahman. Their penances therefore, never go for nothing. They amongst them are not Brahmanas that are incapable of understanding that every created thing is Supreme Brahman.
These, falling away, became members of diverse (inferior) orders. Losing the light of knowledge, and betaking themselves to an unrestrained course of conduct, they take birth as Pisachas and Rakshasas (demons)and Pretas and as individuals of diverse Mleccha species.
The great Rishis who at the beginning sprang into life (through the Creator`s will) subsequently created, by means of their penances, men devoted to the duties ordained for them and attached to the rites laid down in the Eternal Vedas. That other Creation, however, which is eternal and undecaying, which is based upon Supreme Brahman and has sprung from the Primevel God, and which has its refuge upon yoga, is a mental one."
Bharadwaja said:" By what acts does one become a Brahman? By what a Kshatriya? By what acts again does one become a Vaisya or a Sudra? Tell me this, O foremost of speakers."
Bhrigu said, "That person is called a Brahman who has been sanctified by such rites as those called JATA and others; who is pure in behaviour; who is engaged in studying the Vedas; who is devoted to the six well-known acts (of ablutions every morning and evening, silent recitation of mantras, pouring libations on the sacrificial fire, worshipping the deities, doing the duties of hospitality to guests, and offering food to the Viswedevas); who is properly observant of all pious acts; who never takes food without having offered it duly to gods and guests; who is filled with reverence for his preceptor; and who is always devoted to vows and truth.
He is called a Brahmana in whom are truth, gifts, abstention
from injury to others, compassion, shame, benevolence and penance.
He who is engaged in the profession of battle, who studies the Vedas, who makes gifts (to Brahmanas) and takes wealth (from those he protects) is called a Kshatriya.
He who earns fame from keep of cattle, who is employed in agriculture and the means of acquiring wealth, who is pure in behaviour and attends to the study of the Vedas, is called a Vaisya.
He who takes pleasure in eating every kind of food, who is engaged in doing every kind of work, who is impure in behaviour, who does not study the Vedas, and whose conduct is unclean, is said to be a Sudra.
If these characteristics be observable in a Sudra, and if they be not found in a Brahmana, then such a Sudra, is no Sudra, and such a Brahmana is no Brahmana. By every means should cupidity and wrath be restrained.
This as also self-restraint, are the highest results of Knowledge. Those passions (cupidity and wrath), should, with ones whole heart, be resisted.They make their appearance for destroying ones highest good.
One should always protect ones prosperity from ones wrath, ones penance from pride; ones knowledge from honour and disgrace; and one`s soul from error.
That intelligent person, who does all acts without desire of fruit, whose whole wealth exists for charity, and who performs the daily Homa, is a real renouncer (karma-sannyasa).
One should conduct oneself as a friend to all creatures, abstaining from all acts of injury. Rejecting the acceptance of all gifts, one should, by the aid of ones intelligence, be a complete master of ones passions. One should live in one`s soul where there can be no grief. One would then have no fear here and attain to a fearless region hereafter. One should live always devoted to penances, and with all passions completely restrained; observing the vow of taciturnity, and with soul concentrated on itself; desirous of conquering the unconquered senses, and unattached in the midst of attachments.
The indications of a Brahmana are purity, good behaviour and compassion unto all creatures."
Well, it’s pretty complicated. Our word “caste” is used for both of two separate sets of classification among Hindus: the four varnas, from a Sanskrit word meaning “color” (although not related to skin color), namely Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras, as discussed above; and the practically infinite varieties of jati, from Sanskrit jan “to be born,” the endogamous (i.e., gotta marry within it) “hereditary occupation” or social group that has all the strict behavioral and kinship rules. (Then there’s the simultaneous system of exogamous gotras, but please let’s not go into that. :)) So there are many different jatis or castes of Brahmanas (or any other varna), some of which are “higher-caste” than others. See? It’s complicated.
As for non-Hindus, born entirely outside the varna and jati systems, according to the classical Hindu doctrine we are indeed beneath even the lowest Sudras, possibly even beneath untouchables, who are after all supposed to originate as products of caste-violating marriages so they at least have some connection to the system. The official classification for non-Hindus was the Sanskrit term mleccha, “foreign filth.” (As recently as the 1950’s, my graduate advisor used to put down mleccha in the “Caste” column in Indian hotel registers; the proprietors were generally not too amused but they understood what it meant.)
Oh. I see DRS dealt with a lot of this in the previous thread (although I don’t know where s/he came up with the variant “varni”). Just to tie up another loose end from there, yes, Sikhs are outside the caste system as well, not being Hindus. Sikhism originated in Northern India around the sixteenth century (I think), incorporating various elements of both Islam and Hinduism.
I have always thought that the "dot on the forehead’ indicated caste, but some claim it indicates marital status.
Would a career military officer be 'promoted" to the ksatriyas? Or does that caste have nothing to do with really being a warrior?
I for one do not care for this discriminatory, inheritance-based, never-upwardly mobile, caste system. It is good that India is trying to eliminate it. I have seen the wealthy but spiritually bankrupt and the poor but spiritually rich in my lifetime. Don’t tell me that being wealthy or being born an X is a sign of reaching Nirvana. Call me out for being in a cultural snit, I don’t care.
Great answers, people. A few follow-ups:
Keep em comin!
Sua
Mleccahs may be a similar term to gai-jin, or haole in Polynesian, but these are serious derogations. Being called a Canadian is not an insult.
I’m not in disagreement with anyone. I merely posted a few minutes of research and cited references. If my references want to fight her references, that’s up to them. However, I do wish to point out that in almost organized religion, there are two choices. Either you are one of ‘us’, or you are a heathen/unbeliever/barbarian/foreigner/whatever, and are below contempt. At the very least you are not worthy of common courtesy and at the other end of the spectrum you may be killed at random in the name of (God).
Finally there is something capacitor and I agree about completely. I refuse to participate in ANY caste system…unless of course I am at the top of it, in which case I will brutally suppress any attempt to change it.
DITWD;
There are two kinds of “dots on the forehead”: a bindi and a tika. A bindi is simply a decoration and is worn only by women. They are ususally made of wax with little beads stuck in them for decoration.
A tika is made of powdered dye and water mixed into a paste, and is put on one’s forehead by a holy man. Sometimes puffed rice is mixed in as well. You’ll often see guys on the street (presumably priests), offering a tika for a couple of rupees. They can alos be obrtained at the temple. These are worn by both men and women.
An indicator of marital status is red, powdered dye sprinkled down the part of a woman hair. I can’t remember the term for this, but only married women adorn themselves in this manner.
In Nepal, there are some rules regarding marital status and nose rings, but I’m not entirely clear on them and don’t know if they apply to India as well.
Hope that helped.
One addendum----a tika does not have to be applied by a holy man, though it often is. I have seen mothers give them to their son’s, sisters to brothers, etc. If someone knows the exact rules of this, I’d be interested.
Also Tika’s are often in the image of shiva. It looks kinda like a trident. Worshipers of Shiva have them. Others don’t
DITWD: Would a career military officer be 'promoted" to the ksatriyas? Or does that caste have nothing to do with really being a warrior?
Well, there have been and are plenty of ksatriyas who aren’t warriors or rulers, but there is a definite connection. No, technically you couldn’t be “promoted” to ksatriya status because you would have to be born in the right jati to become a career military officer, so you’d already be a ksatriya. In practice, though, there was a good deal of “caste mobility,” although it operated rather slowly and applied to groups rather than individuals. A kingroup might migrate to a new location and call themselves members of a higher varna, and nobody could contradict them. There are numerous instances of even sudra groups making the leap to brahmana status this way. Similarly, a group might lose status due to economic pressure; if members of a local brahmana jati can’t make a living at their hereditary occupation, they’ll move into trade or agricultural labor, and eventually have the effective status of vaisyas or sudras and be acknowledged as such.
Intergroup negotiations can also change a group’s status. The Rajputs (and, I think, the Mahrattas as well) of Western India are now ksatriya groups, but started out as tribal peoples who were hired as warriors by more conventional Hindu societies, and the ksatriya status ended up going along with the social function.
Sua, tcburnett and I aren’t really in disagreement, we’re just using different sources. The epics, particularly the Gita, and many philosophical works do contain many egalitarian and meritocratic ideals. The rules I was describing are found in the “dharmasastras” or codes of law, which are much more hard-line about preserving the prescribed social categories and practices. They tended to get stricter with the passing centuries, starting from a comparatively relaxed (and non-vegetarian, btw) social system in the Vedic era about 3000 years ago, and getting progressively more complicated and more restrictive (also about things like the legal status of women, which was higher in earlier times). To some extent they were responding to the anticaste ideas of the “heterodoxies”, i.e. Buddhism and Jainism (and Islam, when that came along); but as I said, there’s a good deal of anticaste thought in Hindu philosophy too. Argh! It’s complicated.
As for the treatment of us mlecchas: any Hindu these days with any pretensions to “Westernization” at all is not going to treat foreigners as though they were untouchable. Even traditional Hinduism has been affected by the “neo-Hinduism” movements of the nineteenth century that attempted to get rid of all these rigid social stratifications (Gandhi, for example, was militantly anti-caste). So yes, the worst attitude you might actually encounter is that sort of “haole go home” xenophobic distaste that you mentioned; your presence is not at all likely to be considered an actual defilement (although some old-fashioned people might be restricted by caste rules from eating with you, so you’ll only embarrass them if you urge them too much). If you wanted to marry a very traditional rural Brahmana’s daughter, though, then you’d really see the cow-dung hit the fan, and I don’t care how rich you are. 
Lucky: * There are two kinds of “dots on the forehead”: a bindi and a tika. A bindi is simply a decoration and is worn only by women.*
Right (the second term is also called “tilak” or “tilaka”; I have heard the bindi also called a “tika”, but there must be tons of regional variants). Bindis are traditionally not worn by widows (though again, westernized or modernized Indians don’t take that so seriously).
Kim, tc, I was just funnin yas. I wasn’t looking for a flame war. Ditto on the “Canadian” crack.
Seriously, thanks for all the input.
Sua
That rule applies all across the world. In some societies the the man wears a real nose ring by which his wife leads him around. In others, like America, the man has a virtual nose ring by which his wife leads him around.