Talk:Varna (Hinduism)/Archive 2

Intro changed
I have copied over the varna part from article indian caste system. I have tried to make it more academic. There are a lot of repetitions and unwanted material that needs a cleapup. SV 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Varna as color
Varna doesn't mean skin color, it's talking about aura. Kshatriya means red, and Vaishya means yellow, those aren't skin colors, genious. So don't try to twist varna into a racist interpretation.

Varna has beem used to denote color in several contexts like Shyam varna(black color) or Shwet varna (fair).this too should be included. Holywarrior 10:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Title, general content, and/or merging
The title of this article should be "Varna (caste)" or similar, since the sanskrit stem is "varna-", not "varnas-", and "Varnas" is just an english plural (and "Varna" should be a disambiguation page to "Varna (city)" -- Dbachmann 16:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

i propose this should be merged with Indian caste system. Varna (caste) currently redirects to Caste. The Caste article says "The Indian caste system is a social system in which people are divided into separate communities, known in English as castes, and in Hindi as Varna meaning "colour"", so it is a translated word. --Quiddity 21:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, there is nothing in this article which the Indian caste system doesn't explain better,so I just think this should become a redirect.  Da Gizza  Chat (c) 00:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I just reduced the length of the intro by moving content into the main body of the article, but did not actually change content in a significant way. This article is supposed to be a supplement to Indian caste system to describe the specifics of the varna system, but it could use significant attention from an expert so it isn't just a place for opinions, but actually contains appropriate descriptions and details. Putting message box accordingly. --Scouttle 00:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Astrological origin?
There is a line in the article that states: "The varna of a newborn child is determined by Indian astrological definition. These varna are not hereditary; they are random and determined by astrological coordinates. A Sudra child shall be born in the "Brahmin" varna. Varnas of a child born in Africa or the U.S.A. can be determined by this astrological definition. Also, one should not confuse the genetic characters with the varna."

Yet a google search for "Varna calculator" turns up NOTHING (use quotes). This just doesn't seem right, if the varna can indeed be determined astrologically. Zaphraud 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it 4 castes and outcaste or is it 5 caste?
Under "4. Five Varnas", only four are listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnas#Five_varnas. In the Brahmin link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin, the beginning says: "The fifth (sometimes erroneously clubbed into the fourth) section is the Dalit." Are there four or five?

I wonder if someone could explain why you have 5 entries under Varnas on the Template:Hinduism and only 4 castes? Is it 4 castes plus an outcaste or is it 5 castes. The article does not make it very clear. Many thanks. --Hari Singh 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, actually, I believe that there are thousands of castes in INDIAN society (Hindu, Muslim). There are 5 4 VARNAS (choices). The outcastes were regarded as a Varna correction outcastes were not Varnas, just not a caste either. However, I believe the article reflects that as an exception. Hkelkar 00:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on what is what. Is the word "Dalit" which reputedly replaced the word "Harijan" synonymous with "outcaste?" Nobody seems to agree. This article states that Dalit is one who is out of the system of Varna, but the other article ("Caste System") says that Dalits were those of high caste who had fallen, and differentiates between "Dalit" and "Outcast" If this is so, then what were outcastes, or untouchables originally called in Hindi or Sanskrit? I personally have Indian friends who refer to people of the Shudra Caste as "Harijan." What does it mean?--AaronCarson (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mobility of people born in a given Varna to other Varna
The following text in the article stated:

"The Rig-Veda refers in the Purusha Sukta to the four principal varnas described in Manu's code, viz. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. The term Varna is not associated with Brahmins or Kshatriyas in the Rig Veda, and the term Varna does not occur in the Purusha Sukta. It affirmed that varnashram dharma needs to be strictly followed as every soul has been given a specific duty by God. A soul is born into a varna as punishment/reward for its karmic influences—actions in past lives (Hindus believe in reincarnation)."

It is not clear what the author is referring to by "It" in the statement "It affirmed that varnashram dharma needs to be strictly...". I hope the author is not referring to Rig Veda here, because as is widely known Rig Veda doesn't define the concept of Varna as in the context of societal organization. So Rig Veda cannot possibly affirm this. I believe that the noted statement is factually incorrect, and so I have removed the statement. Please append to this discussion if you want to revert this change, however, this time you will have to provide exact reference of the mandala, sukta, and shloka to back your assertion that Rig Veda affirms the immobility of people born in one Varna to another Varna.

R. Patel (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial: Hereditary not Job based
This article totally misrepresents varna. It tries to justify 3000 years of social slavery. The caste system was a rigid social oppressive mechanism. It is slavery with a different name. For all practical purposes, varana is hereditary. This atricle has a POV issue. --Natkeeran (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Indian caste had hereditary membership. Marriage was only permitted within the same caste. There were restrictions on the choice of occupation and on personal contact with members of other castes. Central to the caste system were the ideas of samsara (reincarnation) and karma (quality of action). The belief is that if one obeys the rules of caste, reincarnation into a higher caste is possible, but women may only have the privilege of coming back as an animal if they are good enough." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkeeran (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations to be provided
Hi there,

I have added the following lines / paragraphs and will provide the citations for it, with more details, by end Sep.

The term, which also means letter, paint, cover, coat, class and caste, has been used in various contexts in the hindu scriptures.

''In monastic traditions, such as those of the Dashanami_Sampradaya, varna is used in the context of Consciousness, as a term that encloses or covers the inner self in Maya_(illusion). Attaining oneness with the consciousness of the self, that is, attaining the state of Brahman is believed to be the ideal of every hindu. A hindu, irrespective of his occupation, would retire into vanaprastha and thereafter sanyasa in this system of life. The pursuit of moksha however, was not restricted to class, caste or age period to a hindu''.

Varna and caste systems are beleived to have become related to mean the same thing, as caste, after the Vedic_period when the puranas and dharmashastras were written.

Thanks. Illusion 09:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayasutra (talk • contribs)

Manu Smriti

 * The Header of this section read: This text is not found in Manu Smrithi: Request the author to remove this.
 * The Header was correct, The Manu Smriti XII v. 4 doesn't state what was quoted here in this article (below). In fact this quote can't be found in Chapter XII at all. I would be sincerly interested in knowing where this quote is found, perhaps the original author or another editor could let me know.

If the shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the veda, then his ears should be filled with (molten) lead and lac; if he utters the veda, then his tongue should be cut off; if he has mastered the veda his body should be cut to pieces." (Manu Smriti XII. 4)


 * With the erroneous quote removed the remaining portion (below) of this section doesn't relate to anything, ie; it isn't in stark contrast to anything as it states. Instead of removing this entire portion, which I feel at this point would be much too harsh, I've opted to make it invisible so that perhaps the original author or another editor can make it relevant or can choose to delete it altogether.

''A stark contrast to this is a mantra from the White Yajur Veda itself:

यथेमां वाचं कल्याणीमावदानि जनेभ्यः । ब्रह्मराजन्याभ्याँ शूद्राय चार्याय च स्वाय चारणाय । प्रियो देवानां दक्षिणायै दातुरिह भूयासमयं मे कामः समृध्यतामुप मादो नमतु ॥ (White Yajur Veda 26.2) "I do hereby address this salutary (Vedic) speech for the benefit of humanity – for the Brahmanas, the Kshatriyas, the Shudras, the Vaishas, the kinsfolk and the men of lowest position in society. May I be dear to the learned in this world."''

Know that the mind is the instigator here below, even to that (action) which is connected with the body, (and) which is of three kinds, has three locations, and falls under ten heads.
 * The Manu Smriti XII v. 4 actually states the following:

LeMaster 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to add something else to the guy above me. It says in the header that a "Sudra becomes a Brahmana...because of his Karma". What nonsense? It only mentions that on an account of intercaste marriage between a Sudra female and a Brahmin male, after the 7th generation only does the Sudra become a Brahmin under the heriditary rule. Thus the line above "Sudra becomes a Brahmana". But it does not even touch Karma in that whole chapter. I read that chapter in Manusmriti to see if there was any indirect implementation but there was no such thing. I took it off. 82.194.62.200 (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to add this extra comment:- "However, a verse in the Manusmriti states: Shudro Brahmanathamethi Brahmanaschethi shudrataam [A Shudra becomes a Brahmin and a Brahmin becomes a Shudra because of his Karma]."

Common sense indicates that there is not even the mention of the word Karma here. The above argument (in quotations) stands false. 82.194.62.200 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Purusha Suktham
The Manusmriti's division does have a precedent in the Rigvedic Purusha Sukta (RV 10.90.11–12), which has the Brahman, Rajanya (=Kshatriya)[citation needed], Vaishya and Shudra classes made of the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of Purusha, respectively[citation needed]. Hi, Regarding tha above, please provide references to substantiate that Manusmrithi has a precedent in the Purusha Sukta. Kindly refer to the recent 2008 work of Frits Staal in his book "Discovering the Vedas", which he wrote based on a wealth of evidence from phonology, archeological evidence, etc - kindly look into the reasons why he debunks AIT and designates Purusha Sukta as a later day addition to the Rigveda. Thanks. --= No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion = (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Shudras are slaves
User:Sindhutvavadin repeatedly introduced a statement in the lede that Shudras are slaves. I reverted, assuming that it is common sense that this is not the case. Since I do not have evidence that they are not slaves, I stand to be corrected if somebody provides evidence that they are. Any opinion on this is welcome. Tomea s y T C 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Caste system in India
I propose that the contents of the article Caste system in India be merged into this one. The topic is the same, and there is much duplication between the articles. The overall content would be improved by the merger, and the result should be more objective. Merging here rather than to Caste system in India is indicated by the fact that the caste system is more Hindu than Indian. --Bejnar (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You say the topic is the same. Are the four Varnas castes? Is the caste system a system of Varnas? Tomea s y T C 20:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I too am opposed to such a merger. The varna system was simple. 4 Varnas and that's all. However the Caste system is much more complex. So, I think these merit separate articles. I think we can safely remove the merger proposal. Say after 7 days? Harsh Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk) 05:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I would rather merge the other article into this one, as this is far more detailed. ManasShaikh (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Obviously the concept of Varna relates to the Indian caste system, but that doesn't mean the two are the same thing.  The latter involves the full historical and sociological impact of the system on Indian society.  FTA: "Although generally identified with Hinduism, the caste system was also observed among followers of other religions in the Indian subcontinent, including some groups of Muslims and Christians."  --194.98.58.121 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Varnashrama dharma
This term can be found within the article, but it isn't really explained, leaving the reader to conjecture its actual meaning. Could someone please add an explicit definition for it? __meco (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Four varnas in alphabetic order?
In the lede we mention the four varnas in a bullet list. On Wikipedia, it is a good custom to mention any kinds of items in alphabetic order, if no hierarchy exists that makes a certain sequence apparent. Since we are using a bullet list and not a numbered list, it appears obvious that this is just the statement of four mutually equal items. If so, the bullet list should follow alphabetic order.

If not, please provide a rationale for a hierarchy. ultimately, we would then need to change bullets into numbers. Tomea s y T C 07:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a hierarchy to the Indian caste system and all the castes are not equal. The only difference between the alphabetical and the "correct" order is the last two items, with shudra considered the lowest caste (please see my discussion below). I will add sources when I get home later tonight, till then please see my discussion below. I am unsure about protocol with regards to bullets vs. numbers. If it is more correct to number items which have a specific order, then please do so.71.190.182.22 (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Order of the varnas listed...
Currently the article lists the 4 varnas is this order:


 * the brahmins: scholars and clergy;
 * the kshatriyas: warriors and administrators;
 * the shudras: laborers ;
 * the vaishyas: agriculturists, artisans and merchants

However, the Shudras and Vaishyas should be switched:


 * the brahmins: scholars and clergy;
 * the kshatriyas: warriors and administrators;
 * the vaishyas: agriculturists, artisans and merchants
 * the shudras: laborers ;

The reason for this is twofold. First, Vaishyas are actually higher up on the caste system than Shudras. The order of, I don't want to say respect, but importance? prominence? is brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas, and then shudras which are considered the lowest caste (i.e. the 4 varnas are NOT considered equal). Second, the Shudra caste was actually added later than the other three. The varna caste system actually grows out of Proto-Indo-European ideology which separated society into a tripartite system with the priests on top, then came the warriors (which also included kingship), then the artisans/merchants. The shudras were only added later in Indian society primarily in relation to the the native Dravidian inhabitants. These natives were seen as inferior to the Indo-Aryans and thus not worthy of receiving a varna, and later were incorporated into their own varna which included slaves and petty laborers. I can provide sources for all of this (which I will attempt to do when I get home later), but even the wiki pages for each varna lists the shudras as lower than the vaishyas. The only reason to list it the current way is to have them in alphabetical order, however is see no reason to use this ordering system as opposed to the correct order of importance/prominence of the four castes.71.190.182.22 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out the current set up is confusing in particular to the later "The twice born" section of the article. That section clearly states the first three are (then goes on to mention many of the reasons I stated above). However, that section is referring to the brahmins, kshatriyas, and vaishyas which isn't readily apparent with the ordering at the beginning of the article.71.190.182.22 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, here are four academic scholarly sources from respected authors that talk about this in detail and discus the development and order of the varnas:


 * Lincoln, Bruce. "Indo-European Religions: An Introduction." Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology and Practice. U Chicago. 1991.
 * Lincoln, Bruce. "Sacrificial Ideology and Indo-European Society." Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology and Practice. U Chicago. 1991.
 * Malamoud, Charles. Cooking the World: Ritual & Thought in India. Oxford U. 1996.
 * Vesci, Uma Marina. Heat & Sacrifice in the Vedas. Motilal Banarsidass. 1992.


 * 71.190.182.22 (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As of today, there are people who belong to Shudra varna and there are others who belong to the Vaishya caste. Are you honestly arguing that, by the definition of their respective varna, the former is lower (in imporance) than the latter?
 * I find this is dangerous thought. Actually, the government government overseeing the country where the varna system is know (i.e., the Inidan government) takes very strong measurements against the categorization of people as lower according to their caste.
 * Independent from this, it is obviously offensive to tell a group of people they are "lower" based on their birth. It is coparable with racism. Wikipedia is not a platform for the categorization of living people as lower and upper, no matter which philosophy. Tomea s y T C 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, however the fact remains that traditionally there is a specific order to the varnas AND there are specific reasons for the order that go back to Proto-Indo-European Ideology. Even forgoing the lead, this order and the reasons for it should be mentioned somewhere in an encyclopedic article on the subject. To not do so would be biased and denying that such a thing ever existed which is equally wrong (to use your example, it wouldn't be right to deny racism ever existed). As it is, there are many sub-sections of the article that do in fact refer to the traditional order, however, as it is never specifically spelled out, this leads to confusion in reading these sections. Thus the section "The twice born" begins with "The first three varnas are..." and other sections make reference to "three high varnas".

Secondly, as politically correct as we want to be, it doesn't deny the fact that the traditional order, and potential discrimination because of it, is still a very real fact of life for many people. I was no way arguing that one group of people is superior to another. The government overseeing the country and taking very strong measurements against the categorization of people as lower according to their caste, as you said, is not technically the varna system. It is the government trying to move beyond the varna system. The specific ordering of the varnas is something built into Hinduism itself, and it is important to note that the traditional order is what is most often used in scholarly papers on the subject. (You can also simply google the varnas and see that almost every site lists them in that order). Even when all the specific varnas are treated equally, the order they are mentioned in is retained. In fact, a caste system is not inherently a class system. The traditional ordering of a caste system does not imply superiority like a class system does, which is why when explaining it above I had a hard time expressing the difference and resorted to using lots of words with question marks (respect? importance? prominence?). In a way, even in modern society we give the role of a priest more respect than someone who works a blue-collar job, but we don't necessarily see the priest as inherently a better or superior person. However, yes, Indian society has at times used the order for discrimination; which is a man-made addition to the ordering not the basic tenets of the ordering in Hinduism. That is what should be looked out for.

Finally, there is the point of confusion that is created inadvertently by listing it in alphabetical order. Brahmins and kshatriyas are first and second respectively in the traditional and alphabetical order by coincidence. Not everyone is familiar with Wiki's rules that bullets are indicative of alphabetical ordering. For many people (regardless of matters of equality) their personal varna is a matter of pride. The alphabetical listing does in a way reinforce the traditional order, while at the same time seems to indicate only the last two varnas are interchangeable. Though there is nothing that probably can be done about this, I guarantee you the idea that only the last two varnas being interchangeable will be equally offensive to many people (for both racial and more importantly, religious reasons). In fact, I think the visual of a list currently on the page inherently indicates a hierarchy. Additionally, I think numbering the varnas would be the worst thing to do as that would indicate a hierarchy more than bullets. I think the best thing to do would be to list them in the traditional order in a sentence rather than as a list, as this, to me, does not portray the hierarchy that the visual of a list implies.

Also, I should mention that agriculturalists are usually listed in the shudra not vaishya varna as stated on the page. 209.2.211.197 (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is a hyrachie, we should number and list accordingly. If there is no hyrarchie, we should use the non-hyrarchical bullet list and apply alphabetic ordering, or use no liast but a sentence as you propose, nevertheless with alphabetic ordering.
 * However, if the rationale underlying a hyrarchie is based on "importance", "pureness", "respect", and the listing applies to living persons that identify with these categories, we shall avoid such listing. Wikipedia is neither a platform to offend people nor to nurrish discriminatory systems that bear no evidence.
 * Having said this, we should think of a way to deal with the fact that there exists a school of thought that thinks that some people (defined through a category they join by birth) are more or less important than others. I am not saying that we shall ignore that such an ideology exists. However, if this is spelled out anywhere, it must be made clear that such a ranking is not a fact, but simply the POV. Tomea s y T C 20:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I conversing with one person (IP 209 and IP 71)? Perhaps you would like to create an account. I am sure you could enrich Wikipedia in many places. Think about it, it is a very easy and fast process.
 * IP 71 seems like mixing up varna and caste system, while IP 209 does not. Nevertheless, from what has been written by IP 209 it sounds like you are one person.
 * I would like to propose to keep statements a little shorter, so we can react on everything and discuss it till the end. There were too many interesting aspectes in the huge post above to react to all of them.
 * Just to react to one of them, the scholary articles. I know there are abundant references to describe the system in very much detail, staring with mostly British scholars in the 19th century. They have visited a place and described what they have seen, and it usual reads as a fact. We should not confuse these narration of observed reality with facual reality. Modern scholars fortunately make this clearer. I think the article lacks exactly this distance.
 * Another point to alphabetic ordering and respected priests. If we were to make a list (e.g., in a plain sentence) where some occupations are listed, e.g., mason, police agent, and priest, it would be in exactly this sequence. You may think that priests are more respected and should be mentioned first, but this is clearly POV and would not stand any discussion. Actually, alphabetizing is very frequent copy edit that you see on all kinds of pages that listings. When content is added, often people are not concious of the order they list items, because it may simply be indifferent. But if so, then then it is just right to alphabetize the item, and this happens all the time.
 * Sorry, I just see that my comment has grown as long as the previous one :-/ Tomea s y T C 22:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Maanoj Rakhit
What is so special about Maanoj Rakhit that one of his websites features in the external links section? Although he has written a few books, we do not have an article for the guy and the books have the look of being polemics. He seems to be pretty non-notable & to have strident opinions, akin to Ishwar Sharan. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Heading Should Be " Varna Ashrama Dharma"
As this is the how people more often use & are familiar with.It May also be as "Varna Dharma".Only Varna may mislead to mean Colour in Sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srisharmaa (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Translations as reliable sources
I am having to revert contributions made by. That user did say that things could be discussed here but has continued to reinstate material without initiating that discussion. So I am having to do it. Translations of ancient texts are not de facto reliable sources. If they are heavily annotated/commentaries, such as Stein's work on the Rajatarangini, and if the translator is peer reviewed or similar, then that is ok provided that we are concentrating on their commentary etc. Our reliable sources policy seems pretty clear about this type of thing, and using merely quotes etc from a translation constitutes a use of a primary source in a way that could be original research. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC) the bit that you are relying on the second source of your reverted edit? - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There must surely be hundreds of reliable secondary sources that discuss this topic, even if we limit ourselves to the English language. There is no need to use primaries. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will repeat what I wrote here. It was wrong of you to remove the whole edit even if you have qualms about using translations as secondary sources because my second reference is a "heavily annotated commentary". Regarding, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, I think what it has to say about Varna is important. It is after all the oldest Upanishad. If its okay with you, I'll place the passage on Varna from this translation of Brihadarnayaka Upanishad in this article and add another translation as reference so that readers can cross check it. Besides, I think its important to analyze the evolution of the idea of Varna with time. Therefore, content relying on other Indian texts as sources should also be dated. Other editors will find it interesting that Sage Yajnavalkya in Jabala Upanishad says that one without sacred thread could also be a brahmana, Self would be his sacred thread. But this quote cannot be placed here because this text has neither been dated, nor can I find any other source of translation to verify this.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but, as at Talk:U. G. Krishnamurti, you appear simply not to be listening. This is becoming quite a problem now, and you may wish to read WP:TE and WP:IDHT. I have not yet looked at the second source that you mentioned and reverted your edit in toto because you were acting in bad faith, offering to discuss and then not actually doing so in the appropriate forum (which you were made aware is not my talk page). I will look at it, but you might wish to know that the Swami's article is itself likely to be dramatically pruned before much longer. There is far too much of this poor quality material being shown, in contravention of our policies. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are editing out poor quality material you might like to start with introduction and 'Etymology and origins' section of this article. Please make your opinion known on what I wrote above. Is it okay if I quote a passage from the translation of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad? And do you agree that Etymology and origins section should be arranged chronologically with more content from Indian texts?CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, read what I said about using primary sources as you did and then explain to me why two translations of primary sources are somehow likely to meet a requirement where one does not. If this inability to understand continues then I think that I will have to seek some admin advice because it is becoming a time-sink. I have no opinion regarding the ordering but with regard to Indic texts, yet again, please be aware of WP:PRIMARY and you'll also need to consider WP:NOENG. I have the Swami's publication open right now. The introduction is dreadfully POV-y, as you would expect from an advocacy group, and I am still trying to ascertain how authoritative this person is considered to be outside the circle of people who promote and hagiographise him. It will take a while. - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is "The word ‘sudra’ mentioned here has been a target of great discussion in the Brahmasutras as to whether Sudras can be initiated into Brahma-Vidya. This is one of the points discussed in the sutras of Badarayana and much has been made of it by commentators. Sudra means a low caste belonging to the fourth category of the social order. Can such a person be initiated into Brahma-Vidya? Here is a context where the word ‘sudra’ occurs, and afterwards the person is initiated also. Well, the argument is very long and prolonged and it is not of much use to us to go into the intricacies. But the interpreters make out that ‘sudra’ does not mean a low-caste man, in this context. One who is sunk in grief is called a ‘sudra’. This is the etymological meaning drawn out from the word ‘sudra’. He was in great grief because he found that there was a person greater than him and his knowledge was very little compared to the knowledge of the other one. So he was sorrow-stricken and he rushed immediately in the direction in which he could get this knowledge. He was a king and a Kshatriya. How could you call him a Sudra? So ‘sudra’ here does not mean a low caste man of the fourth order, but is only a symbolic, metaphorical way of referring to that person, indicating that he came in sorrow, in search of knowledge. This point is irrelevant to our subject, but anyway I made mention of it because it has been discussed in great detail in the Brahmasutras."
 * Yes, this is the section referenced.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He appears to be referring to other discussions but does not mention them by name, nor is he specific about what part of the ancient texts he is referring to etc. Nor does it mention anything about lepers etc, as your text did. Beyond that, I need to try to get my head round what is being said: the writing is not good in "English English" terms and is probably "Indian English". - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes he is specific about which part of text he is referencing, its Verse 3, Section 2 of fourth chapter of Chhandogya Upanishad called Samvarga Vidya. He does refer to where its discussed, sutras of Badarayana. I didn't have any problem with his Indian English and didn't know that it was a criteria for quoting references.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to your previous comment, quoting directly from one, two or many sources is in line with WP:PRIMARY since, there is no analysis, synthesis or evaluation in quoting from translation.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is enough. I am bringing some third parties in. You are just wasting my time and being ostrich-like, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, I was the one shifting my ground, making new suggestions. You on the contrary, were hell-bent upon removing my referenced content in a page full of unsourced content. Bring a genuine third party, not one of your friends.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Chronology of Varna
The statements in etymology and origins section of the article are arranged in haphazard way. I feel they should be arranged chronologically in the following order - Rig Veda(Purusha sukta), Adi Shankara's interpretation of Brihadaranyaka, story from Chhandogya, Dr Radhakrishnan's translation of Bhagvad Gita, observations from Manu Smriti and Dharmashastras, Basham's comments of formation of caste with invasion of turks and caste in British times.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Varna System from Bhagwat Gita
Where does this section come from. what is the source/reference.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.62.28.62 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the following statement appearing under the section "Instances in Hindu text and tradition" of this article:

"But in practice the dictat of the Bhagvad Gita, that varna comes from birth is what is followed in Indian society."

The reference that the author makes to Bhagawat Gita as providing some kind of a dictat/final stand on Varna coming from birth is factually wrong, and in sharp contrast with the information presented in section "Varna System from Bhagawat Gita" of this article. Bhagawat Gita, if anything else, takes the stand that Varna is determined by action. The author of Bhagawat Gita (and Mahabharat, at large), Veda Vyaasa, himself belonged to the fishing community (Sudra). Given the apparent flaw of logic in the above noted statement, I have rephrased it to the following:

"But the contemporary Indian society seems to follow the notion that Varna comes from birth."

This represents the notion on Varna in the contemporary Indian society without trying to determine (and, that, too, wrongly) the source of the notion.

If the author of the original statement noted above would like to revert back to his/her version, I would suggest they provide the exact chapter and sloka from Bhagawat Gita to back up their assertion.

R. Patel (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi R.Patel, thanks for your work on this article.. I agree with your interpretation of the original concept of varna in the gita.. however I'm eagerly looking for the source to the interpretations of the four varnas.. please help if possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.62.28.62 (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey R. Patel, just to correct you, Vyasa Maharishi came from a Brahmana community. Don't twist facts. It was his mother that came from the fishng community and not his father who was a Brahmin Maharishi. I hate people who use vyasa's mother's origins as "facts" for his Sudra to Brahmin conversion. 82.194.62.200 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bhagavad Gita uses this word in Chapter 4 Shloka 13. This Shloka may create confusion when read incompletely. Some people have used it to justify the caste system and the atrocities that occurred as a result but the Shloka itself contradicts the current caste system in India, under which people mistakenly believe that castes are based on birth. −	−	चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः । −	−	तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्धयकर्तारमव्ययम्‌ ॥4.13॥ −	−	In this Shloka, Lord Krishna says: −	<Blockquote>I have created all mankind with four distinct personality colours (Personal Tendencies). These four types are based on the person's tendencies of his thoughts and ideals that he keeps in his mind when he does his job. I am the author of these tendencies yet I am not involved at all in their functioning. .

Would someone let me know why my edit is been constantly removed even after giving ample of sources and about the credibility of the translator .What i have seen is that people have doubts about the credibility of the translator.So let me tell those who have the doubts. The Text was translated by Chinmayananda Saraswati,he was the Co-founder of Vishva Hindu Parishad,the largest body of hindus,he was the founder of Chinmaya Mission,he authored 95 publications in his lifetime, including commentaries on the major Upanishads and Bhagavad-gītā,He served several American and Asian universities as a visiting professor of Indian philosophy and conducted university lecture tours in many countriesOn December 2, 1992, Swami Chinmayananda gave an address in the United Nations titled, “Planet in Crisis". In 1993, he was selected as “President of Hindu Religion” for the Centennial Conference of the Parliament of World Religions in Chicago, where Swami Vivekananda had given his address one hundred years prior on September 11, 1893 I hope now you guys will not be removing the Edit just based on your doubts regarding the credibility of the translator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devagyarishi238 (talk • contribs)
 * The two sources you give do not contain the quote you're adding to the article. Not even close. Where are you getting it from? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The translation is a 3-4 page explanation ,i have just written what the gist of the explanation is.I dont think writing the whole 3 page explanation will serve the cause .People who usually come dont want the full explanation, all they want is the summary .Devagyarishi238 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, simply put, you can't do this. Translations must be an exact copy of what the translator wrote without your editorial changes. This is why you're getting reverted. An analysis of the translation can follow after, with proper sources backing up the analysis. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So what should i exactly do so that the edit stays ?If you want i can copy the whole explanation i dont have any objection to that. Devagyarishi238 (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Add an exact translation as provided by the translator. Then summarize what the translator has said in relation to the quote and varna. I'm pinging Sitush for his thoughts. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok ,Will comply .--Devagyarishi238 (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Bhagvad_Gita is a good example. Each chapter name has an exact translation (with source) followed by a short overview (also sourced). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We need to be very careful here. The ideas expressed by Chinmayananda Saraswati are distinctly left-field: like it or not, most people in India believe that caste is inherited, and there have been thousands of gurus all preaching slightly different things. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Swami Chinmayananda is no ordinary guru whom you see at the nearby temple .And regarding whether people of india believe that the varna is based on birth ,therefore now it becomes a greater responsibility for us to let them know what the lord actually said and what we are doing . Devagyarishi238 (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, and this is one of the things I was worried about. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and we have to present things neutrally. Chinmayananda was just another guru, albeit one who managed to entrance a lot of people and get a lot of money. He had his opinion and, roughly speaking, it was designed to counter casteism. But I refuse to believe that his is by any stretch of the imagination the opinion held by most people. Therefore, we can mention what he said but we have to balance it. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See for exactly this question on the credibility i wrote about who he was .And regarding the neutrality of wiki is concerned i dont have any problem that we let both the things stay .I never said that most of the people believe that varna is not based on birth what i said was that people have a misbelieve that it is based on birth .And regarding your allegation for a supreme soul taking money is making me want to question your "sources" of the doubt ,if you have any .Devagyarishi238 (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sitush. Our WP:NPOV policy mandates that content reflects the mainstream point of view. In this case, that means describing what the majority (if there is one) of recognized religious scholars say about the text and also how the public views it. Also, describing Chinmayananda as a "supreme soul" does not help your case. You need to try your best to edit from a neutral or secular point of view. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You know it will be neutral when it will let "BOTH" sides of the view to stay and not the majority view only .That is how  i understand what "Neutrality" is.Second Chinmayananda was been called by me a supreme soul after Sitush alleged him taking money .You should also use the inverted comma's on Sitush's allegation .And regarding the best edit ,you only said to write what is exactly written by him and now you are telling me to edit it under the clothe of secularism .--Devagyarishi238 (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what neutrality means on Wikipedia. Per WP:WEIGHT: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." As for my secular comment, I was referring to how you should approach editing. That is, treat Chinmayananda simply as one source, with no special "supreme soul" insight. Treat him like you would treat Sankar Ghosh as source for immunology information. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I said Chinmayanada was able to get a lot of money. I didn't say he spent it on himself (I've no idea what he did with it, although at least some went towards schools, hospitals etc connected to his religious mission). The tricky thing is that neutrality doesn't simply mean "present both opinions". We have to weight those opinions according to the support given to them. Chinmayanada was but one person and anyone who has been editing Wikipedia caste articles for a while will know that there hundreds of people turn up here each month trying to claim that their caste as brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya (none seem to want to claim to be shudra, which I suspect is the category from which Chinmayanada got most of his support just as Narayana Guru did). That varna is an inherited status is a commonly-held view, like it or not. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets make this simple ,Swami Chinmayananda was the founder of VHP ,i stay in India and i know it has significant number of members so according to the "NPOV policy" it means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree." So the edit has to be there .And Sitush you dont know anything about Swami Chinmayananda ,i recommend you just go and read the "Wiki" page . Devagyarishi238 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just telling you what the policies are. If 100 sources says caste is some sort of birthright and one source says otherwise, then that one source should not get the same coverage as the 100. As for Chinmayanada's article page, well, I'd never trust a Wikipedia article and, yes, I have read it. In fact, I've just finished taking a load of stuff out of it. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that hundred sources are saying the Varna is based on birth (using your above analogy),if that is so give the sources ,And yes the 100 sources should be credible And yes i saw how you removed all the figures . Devagyarishi238 (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I said if 100 sources, not that there are 100 sources. However, you seemed to acknowledge the prevalent opinion yourself when you wrote "under which people mistakenly believe that castes are based on birth" in your reverted edit. I'll certainly try to find you some sources for this, despite it being blatantly obvious, but I've got a lot of other stuff to do here and it isn't likely to be top of my list, precisely because it is so obvious. - Sitush (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sitush and NeilN appear to have got this covered, just adding my two cents. Devagyarishi238, you seem to believe that Chinmayananda's position somehow makes his opinion privileged in some way; it does not. When we evaluate due weight, we examine his academic credentials, not the state of his "exalted soul," such as it may be. From this perspective, he is just another academic; caste issues are not my area of expertise by any means, but even I know that this opinion is not quite mainstream; ergo inserting a large translation by Chinmayananda would be incompatible with WP:DUE, IMO. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * i never said that people of india dont believe that Varna is based on birth (they are not the experts in hinduism the Spiritual Guru's are the experts in Hinduism) all i said was that what is written on Varna is completely different in Geeta than what people are believing in .Second you said you will have to find more sources i gave 2 sources earlier now i am giving another source just to stop this delay (which if you dont reply i would have no other option but to undo the edit )  So till now i have added 3 sources the last one is of Swami Nithyananda ,Mahamandaleshwar of Maha Nirvani Akhada.

And Vanamonde93 that why i added 2 sources earlier, one of Chinmayananda explaining the stuff in detail and other of Anilbaran Roy (who was a disciple of Sri Aurobindo) who just gave the summary of the Sholoka .But the thing is the whole discussion started revolving around Chinmayananda only and about his credentials.
 * I hope other users will also give their views based on what literary evidence i have given .And I am not here to write about things happening now, i was here to tell what was written ,that why i added the sholoka in the "Etymology and origins" and not is what is the current caste system in india so the defence being given that it is not the mainstream view cannot be used to dismiss what is there in the book.Devagyarishi238 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What is notable is that your sources are all people who vehemently opposed the caste system. Religious texts can usually be interpreted in a huge number of ways and that is why (a) we have so many variant religious groups and (b) it is an area so popular with fringe theorists. Since most people do seem to believe that varna is based on birth, we need to emphasise that and have a small bit on how certain gurus think otherwise. I'll absolutely guarantee you that it *is* only a few gurus because practically all Brahmins who actually preach, for example, are going to insist on the older interpretation of Vedic texts etc that they established in the first place, and there have been many more Brahmins than there are gurus. These anti-caste ideas tend to come from the south of India which, bizarrely, is arguably is still the most caste-centric (as Vivekananda said of Kerala, "a lunatic asylum of castes"). What was Narayana Guru's position? He had his "one caste, one god" idea and campaigned strongly to abolish caste in the south ... but what did he say about varna? Any idea? - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding more sources Sivananda Saraswati's book BHAGAVAD GITA

By SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA page 59 point 13 (Pdf link http://www.dlshq.org/download/bgita.pdf) and this one is just to show you that the view was not only from south india ,this guy spend most of his life in Muni Ki Reti, Rishikesh.BTW i dont understand why dont you give any sources about your view ,you want me to give sources but dont give yourself.So if someone who doesnt agrees with your view is taken as someone "who vehemently opposed the caste system" so their views is not to be taken .How stupid is your argument getting day by day .First you said that it is only from Swami Chinmayananda who took money from lot of people ,then when i gave you more sources now you want me to believe that they interpreted this only to justify their stand against the caste system ,Are bhai they will have to say only what is written in the Book and not what they want it to be there .No Guru in India says against Manusmriti cause things are written in it but you cant say this about Geeta .When we write something in "Etymology and origins" section it has to be what was written at that time and not on how YOU or the other brahmin interpret it to be now .And yes the Guru's, being the experts in the field are to be taken as authority and not some common brahmin who hasnt spent his lifetime reading the scriptures like when you want to know something about Christianity/Jesus then the authority is the Pope or what ever they are called and not any random christian.Devagyarishi238 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding more sources this one is from Gita Press,world's largest publishers of Hindu religious texts located in Gorakhpur ie North India and they have been printing Hindu Religious books from 1926.Page 61 ,last paragraph (here Guna's is used which means Qualities) Download link-http://www.gitapress.org/BOOKS/GITA/455/455_Gita_Roman.pdf .Other user please join the discussion i dont want this to be just between me and Sitush ,the more people join the more they will know about this issue .Devagyarishi238 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * More sources B. Srinivasa Murthy's (http://bsmurthy.com/about_the_author.html) translation of Bhagawad Geeta ,Page 55 point 13 Download Link-http://bsmurthy.com/download/Bhagavadgita_by_BSMurthy.pdfDevagyarishi238 (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * More sources ,this is from Robert Charles Zaehner this is not even from an indian so he would not have cared about removing caste BTW this one was published by Oxford University Press ,page 186

More sources ,this is from Bibek Debroy,a Cambridge University Alumni Page 65
 * More Sources ,This one is from Shri Purohit Swami,This one was born in BRAHMIN FAMILY so now your brahmin defense is also not worth it .Paragraph 5 page 27
 * More sources,this one is from Yogi Ramacharaka, Devagyarishi238 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sitush ,if you have any point to put forward then reply now else stop undoing my edit ,and reply with facts and sources Devagyarishi238 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop making up translations. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:DEADLINE. One of your sources is p. 65 of Debroy. It has a translation: "In accordance with gunas and action, the four varnas were created by me. But despite being the creator of these, know me to be constant and not the agent."


 * WTF does that mean? How on earth does it help your case? There are three footnotes to it but I cannot see them. Am I going to find the same incomprehensible stuff in your other sources? Are you still not aware that we do not use religious texts directly & therefore we will need a commentary? - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And your Swami source is just another translation of the same thing, slightly less gibberish but still useless, viz: "The four divisions of society (the wise, the soldier, the merchant, the labourer) were created by Me, according to the natural distribution of Qualities and instincts. I am the author of them, though I Myself do no action, and am changeless."


 * Eh? This supports nothing in particular. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"...upholders of the social crime styled as the caste system" What the heck? WP:NPOV shot to hell. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sitush this supports my view that Varna is not based on birth rather on qualities ,BTW guna means qualities i wrote the same above its ignorant of you to not read it.

Second thing to <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> you said to stop making my transaltion as quotes of others so i used what the other guy said but still you have the problem .All you both are doing is playing a tag team and stop this edit to go thru thats it that to without any academic discussion.Devagyarishi238 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC) I think either you dont know anything about india or you both should read this also Systemic bias.Devagyarishi238 (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Devagyarishi, you can have any opinion you want in the real world but that doesn't mean you get to see it noted on Wikipedia. Your opinion is your interpretation of some words that, to me, are actually gobbledegook. You need to find reliable sources that support your opinion and by that I do not mean a single person because, as has been explained to you before, this really does look like a fringe theory. Yes, the varna concept looks bizarre to me and, yes, I find the practicalities of caste pretty abhorent but neither of those affect how we do things here and I doubt you'll find any article edit of mine that demonstrates my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We cannot use it because it is an opinion in an essay but this, published by SUNY Press, makes it clear that varna is considered to be inherited. The writer would like to change that to a system based on function, although how the heck that can be done when the inherited system defines function is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * First thing the link that you have given on the essay is written by a Buddhist monk is suppose who lives in Thailand ,so you want me to believe that a Buddhist monk or whatever he is ,who never came to india knows more about Hinduism than the 10 sources from completely different backgrounds that i gave who spent all their live in India ,read all the Hindu literature ,learned from Hindu gurus.Devagyarishi238 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sitush i just want to know that do you know how to read Hindi cause that can be a part of the confusion that is there regarding the sholokaDevagyarishi238 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no confusion. All you have to do is provide some reliable sources for your interpretation. We can pick and choose which translation would be best (they're all daft to me) but as far as I can work out you've only got one source with that peculiar interpretation, ie: the people who for hundreds have interpreted it as meaning varna was a birthright are all wrong and this guy is right. And we cannot even see that source. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any chance we can get a cite from a sociologist, rather than a religious figure? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> Bhagawad Gita is a religious book thats why we would need a religious figure than a sociologist.And Sitush i gave 10 sources .And all have said that Varna is based on Qualities ie Guna in hindi and Karma ie action .If you want i can quote from each source that i have given .but you have failed to give even one source backing your view and you talk that hundreds have said this .Devagyarishi238 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We need a sociologist to analyze how the Indian society views the relationship between the Bhagwad Gita and varna. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the links which were not opening ,if you want you can try Devagyarishi238 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you see this (the bit about Gandhi & varna, and p. 38 and p. 109)? Or this one? How about this? [Or maybe this one? Maybe this? Perhaps here? This one touches on it also. While Mandelbaum gives some good background that really we should be using in this article. I could go on. You didn;t give 10 sources that supported your view: you gave umpteen sources that translated the same primary text. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Me and you are on completely different pages i am basing my argument on what is written in 'RELIGIOUS TEXT' ie BHAGAVAD GITA ,and you are discussing based on sociology which i never objected to in the first place.All i am saying from the beginning is what is written in the TEXT and is not what is happening on ground.This is the third time that i am repeating this thing.Devagyarishi238 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really on different pages. I'm still struggling to see where in your sources there is a neutral commentary that says the whole inheritance thing is a misinterpretation. I've just re-read the Zaehner source because that seems to be one that does in fact have a commentary. Nowhere in it can I see the claim that you are making. Can you quote the exact words from it where he makes this claim? - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor could I spot it in Roy. Seriously, it looks like you are saying that hundreds/thousands of years of interpretation have been trashed by one man and you are expecting us to give that one man equal coverage. It won't happen. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Devagyarishi238, you appear to have some misunderstanding as to what this argument is really about. There was a concern raised about the veracity of the translation; those, you have made an attempt to address, whether sufficiently I do not know, because I have not the time to plow through the sources, and because of concern 2; that all the sources you have provided are PRIMARY|primary ones, and we need a secondary source to establish notability in some way. It would not matter if the translation was by Narada himself, it would remain a primary source. Is that clear? Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I raised the "varna is not inherited" issue at the India Project talk page - see it here. I'm getting some very interesting comments but I'm afraid that I cannot see the GBooks sources that have been linked. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Different Perspective on Varna
I think we are misunderstanding the varna system. From what I understand, the varna system was a "flat-structure". If you connect this idea back to the concept of dharma, people were born into a given caste and they performed their duties within their caste. A brahmin's responsibility is no more important than a shudrahs duties. This is just my two cents. I think it would be worth doing research on this and contributing this perspective. Giving both views can give a more neutral description of Varna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.216 (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder that the castes should be invented at the first yuga by brahma. At that time no temple existed, which is, as far as I know, first mentioned in Black Yajurveda 4.1.7 c! I don't really know if any commentary notifies that according to the puranas there were no castes but similary functions of people in the early indian society. The cast-system as we know it is just an invention of the dvapara yuga. But as I said, it could be that this is just my POV because I don't know the commentaries.--87.152.235.88 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Artisans and farmers(peasants) were not Vaishyas
Vaishyas included people such as Merchants, money lenders and Land owners, not artisans, peasants or farmers, who were part of the Shudra varna. Barthateslisa (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That statement reflects WP:OR. Do the sources you have used here satisfy the requirements of WP:HISTRS? - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, my sources do fulfill the requirement of being a reliable source. Also, I may add that, unlike previous edits I did provide citation, much of the sentences on the page are not backed by citation. Barthateslisa (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are way off the mark. The content you are editing talks about the Ancient Hindu literature. That belongs in the realm of history. WP:HISTRS tells you what is a reliable source for history. In particular, it says "(1) Historical articles on wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible." You did not use scholarly sources. The original content was based on Wendy Doniger's encyclopedia and Tim Ingold's encyclopedia. They may not be perfect, but they at least meet the requirements of HISTRS. The sources you have added are nowhere near.
 * Moreover, (here is the irony), the source you cited is explicitly saying "ordinary peasant-farmers (vaishyas)". Your own source is contradicting your own section title above. I am suspecting that your ability to read and comprehend material is seriously deficient. If you do not shape up, you will face serious sanctions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This clearly differentiates between a cultivator(Shudra) and a landowner(Vaishya). Barthateslisa (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not cited any historical document or Hindu Vedic text here, I've mentioned work by authors and researchers, like this book(The Everything Hinduism Book: Learn the Traditions and Rituals of the "Religion of Peace") by Kenneth Schouler and Susai Anthony. Barthateslisa (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And this page is about "Varnas" not "Wendy Dngier's interpretation of Varnas". Barthateslisa (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do they say that is what the ancient Hindu literature said? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ancient texts talk of Peasants as Shudras here. Barthateslisa (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, your sources are getting better. You can't just say "here" and "there" for the sources. Please give full citations. Who is the author? What are his/her credentials? Who is the publisher? Is the book intended for scholars or children? You need to play close attention to these issues when dealing with historical information. When multiple sources contradict, you are required to represent all the scholarly viewpoints weighted according to their prevalence. See WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT. You can't just cite the sources that agree with your POV and discard the others. Your comment on Wendy Doniger above doesn't bode well. She is a world-renowned scholar and you can't discard her view.

I will leave you alone for now, so that you can properly research the subject and understand all viewpoints in the literature. Then tell us what you have found. Don't edit the article until consensus is reached. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Part 1
Joshua Jonathan Look like you didn't read the Sources

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=OgMmceadQ3gC&pg=PA479&dq=varna+vyavastha+became+caste+system&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL1_P63ZXWAhVEr48KHb9ECKUQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=varna%20vyavastha%20became%20caste%20system&f=false

This source says Varna can be changed

and this source

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=xIzyZ7Nvs7cC&pg=PA16&dq=buddha+born+in+kshtriya+family&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi43LXAoanWAhXLYo8KHYQJDRUQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=buddha%20born%20in%20kshtriya%20family&f=false

says Buddha was Kshtriya

Now what is your problem IndianEditor (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you please leave out terms like "what the hell"? Your edit added


 * Jones & Ryan do indeed say that Vishvamitra became a Brahmin. Kinnard does indeed say that the Buddha belonged to the caste "of warriors and kings"; he says nothing about changing varna, nor does he refer to Vedic verses. Saying that the Buddha choose to become a Brahmin is plain bullshit. Concluding that Varna wasn't fixed, based on these two references, is pure WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan  And could you please leave out terms like "bullshit"

Now as Buddha is Concerned No doubt he was born in Kshatriya Family Now definition of Brahmin is (Check the first line of this Page) Brahmin And Gautam Buddha is Brahmin as per the definition So you can't deny that Buddha is not Brahmin IndianEditor (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He didn't "deny" anything. He told you it's  original research, which isn't allowed here. If you think the idea that Varna isn't (or wasn't) fixed belongs in the article, find reliable sources that say so.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  21:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Part 2
*** Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan ***

You removed this

The sources are totally perfect and now if you you think my grammar isn't good please add that in your own wording. GhostProducer (talk)18:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pure WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

How is this Original Research??? . I am not saying Varna can be changed Sources are saying.Then how is this Original Research GhostProducer (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

??? No reply Should I add it back??? GhostProducer (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You can comment at Talk:Varna (Hinduism). Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

*** End of copied part ***

What I removed was preceded by this text:

This is what I removed, which was placed after the text above:

The source says (I have limited access):

Does this source refer to this verse? The sentence "Varna can be altered anytime" is a WP:REDFLAG. A story about a legendary figure changing varna is not enough to validate such a claim. And taken together, this is pure WP:OR.

Mind: maybe the original varna-system wasn't that fixed. Pankaj Jain, Associate Professor of Indic Studies (2011), ''The Caste System of Hindu Society], Huffington Post:

But then, that's Huffington Post. And still different from "Varna can be altered anytime" (present tence). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Focus
This article has lost its focus. Look at the title and then at the content - Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism etc are irrelevant. Further, we have pages redirecting to it which refer to concepts which should be noted but are not, eg: varnashramadharma.

The article seems to have changed a lot during a period when I wasn't editing much. It isn't all for the good. - Sitush (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm. I suppose one solution would be to rename it as Varna (religion)? We would probably have to rework the lead section. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)