Arya-And-Castes In Hindu Sanatan Dharma.

Arya means a noble person/ gentleman.
 If in behavior, speech, actions, one adheres to principles of vedas – is
civilized, affectionate to fellow people, not tempted to commit sins,
hygienic, promotes and propagates truth, etc – he or she is an Arya. Again
it is not a binary logic, but a continuous function.

2. English is a poor approximate of vedic language. But Brahmin, Kshatriya,
Vaishya, Shudra are names of varnas or classifications based on profession.
They have nothing to do with birth. Shudra is someone who could not get
 adequetly educated and hence incompetent to be in any of these professions.

People in knowledge based matters are Brahmins, those in state/defence level
 matters are Kshatriyas, those in financial/ economic jobs are Vaishyas and
 rest are Shudras.

3. These Varnas are nothing to do with presently used custom of surnames. In
 fact if you read Ramayan or Mahabharat or other texts of those times, you do
not find this tradition of First Name-Middle Name-Surname as nomenclature of
people.

I would refute the basis of argument that Arya word denotes parentage
in any manner.

1. Of course, family and parentage do have their role in determining
 sanskaars of a person. But that does not mean that someone from unidentified
parentage cannot be Arya. This imaginary casteism is one of the biggest
 reasons for our decadence. We foolishly expurged a large majority of our
 fellow brothers and sisters as Shudras and Achhoots on basis of their
unknown or questionable lineage or family.

2. The Arya has nothing to do with one’s gotra. Hardly any surname today
represents any Gotra. The gotra classification was to do with preventing
marriages between closed relatives.

3. Arya denotes a noble person. Family is only one among many ways to
ascertain if someone is noble. And to say that Shudra cannot become Brahmin
is again blatantly wrong. Brahmin is someone with knowledge. And Shudra
 means someone who could not become Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya due to lack
 of edcation or training. So even a Shudra, after having gained knowledge
through efforts can become Brahmin.

4. Dwija means twice born. From birth everyone is Shudra. But after
 education, Brahmins, Kshatriya and Vaishya take another birth as skilled
humans. In other words, education gives them another birth as civilized
 people worthy of contributing to society. Thus they become Dwija – twice
born. Those who are unable to gain education lose this opportunity of new
birth and hence remain Shudra.

Thus an illiterate son of Brahmin is also shudra. And any shudra, after
having gained knowledge through his or her efforts can become a brahmin,
 vaishya or kshatriya. This has nothing to do with biological birth.

Until we are able to throw away this tail of birth based caste, we can never
 be a united front for vedic empire.

Lets embrace truth and reject the trash.

Arya-And-Castes In Hindu Sanatan Dharma.

is also available in English on http://agniveer.com/9/arya-and-castes/

प्रत्येक श्रेष्ठ और सुसभ्य मनुष्य आर्य है |

अपने आचरण, वाणी और कर्म में वैदिक सिद्धांतों का पालन करने वाले, शिष्ट, स्नेही, कभी पाप कार्य न करनेवाले, सत्य की उन्नति और प्रचार करनेवाले, आतंरिक और बाह्य शुचिता इत्यादि गुणों को सदैव धारण करनेवाले आर्य कहलाते हैं |

ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय, वैश्य और शूद्र यह चार वर्ण वास्तव में व्यक्ति को नहीं बल्कि गुणों को प्रदर्शित करते हैं. प्रत्येक मनुष्य में ये चारों गुण (बुद्धि, बल, प्रबंधन, और श्रम) सदा रहते हैं. आसानी के लिए जैसे आज पढ़ाने वाले को अध्यापक, रक्षा करने वाले को सैनिक, व्यवसाय करने वाले को व्यवसायी आदि कहते हैं वैसे ही पहले उन्हें क्रमशः ब्रह्मण, क्षत्रिय या वैश्य कहा गया और इनसे अलग अन्य काम करने वालों को शूद्र. अतः यह वर्ण व्यवस्था जन्म- आधारित नहीं है|

आजकल प्रचलित कुलनाम ( surname)  लगाने के रिवाज से इन वर्णों का कोई लेना-देना नहीं है | हमारे प्राचीन धर्मग्रन्थ रामायण, महाभारत या अन्य ग्रंथों में भी इस तरह से प्रथम नाम- मध्य नाम- कुलनाम लगाने का कोई चलन नहीं पाया जाता है और न ही आर्य शब्द किसी प्रकार की वंशावली को दर्शाता है|

निस्संदेह, परिवार तथा उसकी पृष्टभूमि का किसी व्यक्ति को संस्कारवान बनाने में महत्वपूर्ण स्थान है परंतु इससे कोई अज्ञात कुल का मनुष्य आर्य नहीं हो सकता यह तात्पर्य नहीं है | हमारे पतन का एक प्रमुख कारण है मिथ्या जन्मना जाति व्यवस्था जिसे हम आज मूर्खता पूर्वक अपनाये बैठे हैं और जिसके चलते हमने अपने समाज के एक बड़े हिस्से को अपने से अलग कर रखा है – उन्हें शूद्र या अछूत का दर्जा देकर – महज इसलिए कि हमें उनका मूल पता नहीं है | यह अत्यंत खेदजनक है |

आर्य शब्द किसी गोत्र से भी सरोकार नहीं रखता | गोत्र का वर्गीकरण नजदीकी संबंधों में विवाह से बचने के लिए किया गया था | प्रचलित कुलनामों का शायद ही किसी गोत्र से सम्बन्ध भी हो |

आर्य शब्द श्रेष्टता का द्योतक है | और किसी की श्रेष्ठता को जांचने में पारिवारिक पृष्ठभूमि कोई मापदंड हो ही नहीं सकता क्योंकि किसी चिकित्सक का बेटा केवल इसी लिए चिकित्सक नहीं कहलाया जा सकता क्योंकि उसका पिता चिकित्सक है, वहीँ दूसरी ओर कोई अनाथ बच्चा भी यदि पढ़ जाए तो चिकित्सक हो सकता है. ठीक इसी तरह किसी का यह कहना कि शूद्र ब्राह्मण नहीं बन सकता – सर्वथा गलत है |

ब्राह्मण का अर्थ है ज्ञान संपन्न व्यक्ति और जो शिक्षा या प्रशिक्षण के अभाव में ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय या वैश्य बनाने की योग्यता न रखता हो – वह शूद्र है |  परंतु शूद्र भी अपने प्रयत्न से ज्ञान और प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त करके वर्ण बदल सकता है | ब्राह्मण वर्ण को भी प्राप्त कर सकता है |

द्विज – अर्थात् जिसने दो बार जन्म लिया हो | जन्म से तो सभी शूद्र समझे गए हैं | ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय और वैश्य इन तीन वर्णों को द्विज कहते हैं क्योंकि विद्या प्राप्ति के उपरांत योग्यता हासिल करके वे समाज के कल्याण में सहयोग प्रदान करते हैं | इस तरह से इनका दूसरा जन्म ‘ विद्या जन्म’ होता है | केवल माता-पिता से जन्म प्राप्त करनेवाले और विद्याप्राप्ति में असफ़ल व्यक्ति इस दूसरे जन्म ‘ विद्या जन्म ‘ से वंचित रह जाते हैं – वे शूद्र हैं |

 अतः यदि ब्राह्मण पुत्र भी अशिक्षित है तो वह शूद्र है और शूद्र भी अपने निश्चय से ज्ञान, विद्या और संस्कार प्राप्त करके ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय या वैश्य बन सकता है | इस में माता- पिता द्वारा प्राप्त जन्म का कोई संबंध नहीं है |

आइए, हम सब सत्य ग्राही बनें, मिथ्या जातिवाद की जकड़ से मुक्त होकर एकात्म और सशक्त समाज तथा राष्ट्र का निर्माण करें | विशेष विश्लेषण के लिए पढ़ें: http://agniveer.com/4034/caste-vedas-hi/

The limits of tolerance

A Pakistani author writing in Pakistan’s leading newspaper shows more sense in what he has written than a lot of others.

The limits of tolerance

By Irfan Husain Thursday, 26 Aug, 2010

Dawn
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/irfan-husain-the-limits-of-tolerance-680

The ongoing furore over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque shows no sign of abating after weeks of noisy controversy. In a sense, it has become a litmus test of America’s cherished freedom of worship, as well as its tolerance of other people and other faiths.

But to put things in perspective, I would like to invite readers to imagine that a group of Christians asked for approval to build a church close to the site of an iconic building in Pakistan some of their fellow-believers had destroyed, killing thousands. How would we have responded?

Actually, this scenario is so implausible as to be practically meaningless. The sad reality is that non-Muslims in Pakistan live on sufferance, and it would be unthinkable for them to even dream of expanding their places of worship, let alone constructing new ones. A few years ago, I recall writing about the trials and tribulations of Christians trying to build a church in Islamabad despite having received official permission. They were bullied by a local mullah, and found no support from the city administration. Since then, things have got worse for the minorities.

The ongoing dispute in New York is another reminder of how civilised societies treat those citizens who do not subscribe to the majority faith. Much to his credit, New York’s Mayor Bloomberg (a Jew, by the way) approved the project, despite opposition from right-wing groups. It is President Barack Obama who has been a disappointment to liberals with his equivocation over the issue: after appearing to endorse it at an iftar event for Muslim ambassadors, he backtracked swiftly in the face of shrill and expected criticism from the right.

In a controversial article that appeared recently in the Ottawa Citizen (Mischief in Manhattan; 7 August), Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, two Muslims who live in Canada, argued that proceeding with the project is tantamount to mischief-making, an act prohibited in Islam. The authors have been attacked for their stance on the Internet, with readers accusing them of taking a reactionary line.

The truth is that the issue has become highly divisive, with over 60 per cent of Americans opposing the project. Before readers think this reflects poorly on secular attitudes in the country, please recall that there are some 30 mosques in New York. What is really giving offence is the location of the proposed Muslim community centre as it is a couple of blocks from where the Twin Towers stood before 9/11.

For weeks now, this controversy has been in the news with talking heads on TV from across the political spectrum reviling or defending the project, initially dubbed the Cordoba Initiative. Critics have attacked the name of the centre for serving as a reminder of Muslim conquests in Europe. In response, the developer has said the name has been changed to Park51.

In such an emotionally charged debate, it’s hard to be rational. Logically, the location should be immaterial: after all, there is already a mosque in the area, not far from Ground Zero. So why should another make any difference? The truth is that the 9/11 attacks continue to resonate deeply in America, so what’s the point in insisting on a project that is like a red flag to a bull?

The project is expected to cost around $100 million, and many think the bulk of the money will come from Saudi Arabia, even though the source of the funds has not been made public yet. If this is indeed so, Raza and Fatah consider this would be a slap in the face of Americans as “nine of the jihadis in the Twin Towers calamity were Saudis”. More to the point for me is that the Saudis have been funding mosques and madressahs around the world, in addition to paying for chairs for Islamic studies at major universities. Many of these have been used to project the country’s official Wahabi version of Islam that has fuelled the rising tide of extremism and jihadi fervour. Against this backdrop, the question to ask is whether we need yet one more such mosque.

Raza and Fatah ask why the $100 million can’t be put to use to help people in Darfur and Pakistan instead? This is especially relevant in the context of the floods that are devastating much of Pakistan today. My own question is about reciprocity: if the Saudis can aggressively spread their ideology abroad, why can’t other beliefs build their places of worship in Saudi Arabia?

Currently, it is illegal to build a church, synagogue or temple in the country. Even importing copies of the Bible or the Torah is forbidden. Granted, Saudi Arabia is not an example of tolerance and freedom of worship. In fact, it is one of the most benighted societies on the planet where the royal family rules with an iron hand in partnership with the clergy. Nevertheless, every time the government or individual members of the ruling House of Saud wish to fund a religious centre abroad, they should be asked to open up their country to other faiths.

Liberal Americans will respond – to their everlasting credit – that their constitutional guarantee of freedom of worship should not be hostage to mediaeval attitudes in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Ironically, given the choice between living in a religiously ordered state or in a secular country like America, Muslims have voted with their feet in the hundreds of thousands. Most of them are happier in their adopted home, and are free to worship as they please.

This is America’s major strength, and it would be a pity if the events of 9/11 were to erode it. Despite the strong religious strand in American society, it welcomes all faiths. All the more reason, then, for everybody in this melting pot to be respectful of others.

If I am having a meal with a devout Hindu friend at a restaurant, I would not dream of ordering a steak because I am aware that for him or her, cows are sacred. While we all have certain rights, we often do not choose to exercise them so as not to cause offence. This is what living in a heterogeneous society like America entails, so if Muslims opt to live there out of their own free will, it seems to me that they would be wise not to test the limits of tolerance.

Related articles

• The limits of tolerance (samhindu.wordpress.com)
• Gingrich says US should be more like Saudi Arabia|Michael Tomasky (guardian.co.uk)
• Former Muslim from Saudi Arabia Discusses Islam and Christianity (treeofmamre.wordpress.com)
• This Saudi ex-Muslim better watch his head (barenakedislam.wordpress.com)

Sex on Military Time

An old but still ruggedly handsome Sergeant Major found himself at a gala event hosted by a local liberal arts college. There was no shortage of extremely young, idealistic ladies in attendance, one of whom approached the Sergeant Major for conversation. “Excuse me, Sergeant Major, but you seem to be a very serious man. Is something bothering you?”

“Negative, ma’am. Just serious by nature.”

The young lady looked at his awards and decorations and said, “It looks like you have seen a lot of action.”

“Yes, ma’am, a lot of action.”

The young lady, tiring of trying to start up a conversation, said, “You know, you should lighten up a little. Relax and enjoy yourself.”

The Sergeant Major just stared at her in his serious manner. Finally, the young lady said, “You know, I hope you don’t take this the wrong
way, but when is the last time you had sex?”

“1955, ma’am.”

“Well, there you are. You really need to chill out and quit taking everything so seriously!? I mean, no sex since 1955!?”

Feeling charitable and a little bit drunk, she took his hand and led him to a private room where she proceeded to “relax” him several times.

Afterwards, panting for breath, she leaned against his bare chest and said,

“Wow, you sure didn’t forget much since 1955!”

The Sergeant Major, glancing at his watch, said in his matter-of-fact voice, “I hope not, it’s only 2130 now.”