Westerns need people like u to get unbiased perspective of Indian culture... pls keep uploading🙏

Dear Dr Sutton You have put the most sensitive issues in a very balanced way. Without skipping shoddy parts and with justice to the broader and higher perspective of the Dharma. Thank You :)

an obvious point that was missed was manusmriti is a smriti and was specific to that time. our time needs our own smriti based on how things are for our times. another point that was missed was about Shakti being the power behind gods. How shakti is feminine and is the reason why anything has energy to perform any function.

Thanks for the new uploads sir. its an wonderful experience to view Hinduism form a western point of view.

Can anyone point me to the text where I can find Gandhi's statement quoted here?

i would like to point out three main personalities instrumental in removing untouchability and oppression against women. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Ramakrishna Paramhansa and Raja Rammohan Roy. guess what all three were brhamins and very proud hindus. Hindus do not deny that that some of their ideas have resulted in very bad social consequences, but they DO try fixing it. In other words Hinduism is open to editing.

What a nice video s

the caste system is everywhere in the world think of it.

Manusmriti cannot be taken as a athority We need to take sruthies and vedas only assuthority

Agree with your take on gender, but I think your take on caste was incomplete. Varna cannot be equated to caste. Varna is based on internal nature, not birth, and can refer to one's occupation and mindset. Caste is based on arbitrary birth distinctions. But I ultimately agree principles > details.

Dowry is a way to give daughters your wealth, because in ancient times, sons inherited your wealth. Hindus are constantly modernizing though and daughters inherit equally (same as sons) now.

That is a good balanced argument . Brahmins offer service of worship . Being a Brahmin is not dependent on Birth of a person or where one is born . Even though some among them may think it is .

Great explanations. Shruti (the Vedas) are considered ones that are heard (mainly from time immeorial or from God) is the primary hindu source. Smriti (all the thesis of various sages) are "ones that are remembered or written" are works done by later sages and their own perceptions and their own temporal context. Context of some of these sages (like Manu maybe) who wrote smriti were of war and domination of men and man's assertion of their physical power. Whosoever used to win a war was given all the rights to the material world. In that context anything that "does not" win war was considered "inferior". So hinduism is a complex religion which needs in depth study and shallow quotations are unfortunate.

First of all Varna should not be seen as a strict division of category on the basis of birth. It is also on the basis of your natural inclination on type of work (Actually i was not getting the right way to explain this but the idea is what kind of work a person is doing. So we are going back to varna system. In this we are dividing people on the basis of their inclination. The people who has natural inclination towards learning are brahmans, the people who have natural inclination toward administration are kshatriya, the people who are more inclined toward business are vashyas and the people who have much inclination toward art and craft are sudras. It was not that the first one was good and last one was bad person. but it got translated into it because of various societal practices. For Example These days we give lot of importance to Businessmen but it does not mean that treachers are not equal. It is just a result of societal importance). But i also don't deny the fact the most of the people used to follow what their family used to do. Again we can see some logic here. Because it come very natural to them. They were grown up by watching that in the life and they learnt it over the year.Therefore when they get expertise on this then they could not able to switch to other things. That's how they got stuck with that particular work and later society used dharma as a tool to enforce the concept of varna and dharma according to their needs and maintaining their status quo. It is also important to understand the fact that earlier there was fluidity in the varna. Some people did moved from one varna to another. For Example Valmiki. Therefore we need to understand these concept also and understand the role of society.

Social stratification is global and a secular consequence of societal evolution. (sociology 101). The caste system in South Asia stands out phenotypically but in its origins secular. Clearly any religious model has a cultural interface. Genomic data has not supported rigid intra-caste endogamy nor net inter-caste migration rigidity.

Dharma is always subjected to improvise..

It's better to remove western lenses before seeing Varna system. It's totally different from caste system now. If varna system is wrong then dividing people as doctors, engineers, etc is also wrong. Even in original manusmriti there is no caste system. Varna system is based on occupation and knowledge not on birth. Like we have engineer, doctor, etc now a days.

If you translate "varNa" as "caste," and "religion of the Vedas" as "Hinduism," then it certainly is the case that caste (in one sense of the word) is a part of Hinduism. The Vedic caste system (which is different from the modern Indian caste phenomenon) is a logical development on the concept of karma-yoga as taught in Bhagavad-gita. Karma-yoga stresses the performance of selfless work as an alternative and practical form of worshipping God, since most people are not suited to the stereotypically ideal discipline of renunciation and austerity. When one works in karma-yoga, he is to have no attachment for the results of his work or the work itself. Now, how can anyone work if he has no attachment to performing any particular work? The answer is, he works according to duties prescribed to him based on his birth. And he dedicates that work for the pleasure of God, all the while meditating on the Self and the distinctions between the Self and the temporary, material body. It's important to understand that in Hinduism, birth is not an accident. One gets one's birth as a result of the guNa and karma one has accrued from previous lifetimes. The guNa and karma acquired from previous births creates in one a consciousness that is predominantly in the mode of goodness, passion, or ignorance. The duties that are prescribed for a given birth-caste are those that, when performed selflessly and as a form of worship, get one to the goal of Self-realization and eventually to God-realization in spite of any starting disadvantages one might have inherited with birth. To put it simply, Vedic Hinduism rejects the notion that liberation is only for those who are born with a pure consciousness. On the contrary, everyone in the four different grades of inherited consciousness has a path to get to the pure consciousness which leads to self-realization. It's also important to understand that, at least as far as the Vedas, the Puranas, and Itihasas (Mahabharata and Ramayana) are concerned, this was not a coercive system. It's not the case that Vedic Hinduism approves of mobs rising up and quashing anyone who dares to deviate from his prescribed duties. It is true that non-dvijas (i.e. shudras and those born outside of the Vedic caste system) are not permitted to study the Vedas, a discipline that requires twelve hard years of austerity beginning at around the age of 5 in which one had wait hand and foot on one's spiritual master and only eat when given permission to do so. However, the Puranas and the Itihasas, which are collectively referred to as the Fifth Veda, contain the essence of the Vedas and were compiled specifically to help those who don't have the qualification to learn the Vedas get spiritual knowledge. Now, Western academic scholars may not like this, but all of the classical schools of Vedanta, whose scholarship in the Veda is unrivaled, accept this fact about the Puranas and Itihasas, and moreover they even comment on and propagate the teaching of these ancillary texts because they are a pleasure to study and are easier to understand than the Vedas. The conclusion here is that judging the Vedic caste system by the excesses of uninformed people who are part of the modern Indian caste phenomenon is unwarranted. It is similarly unhelpful to judge the Vedic caste system on the premise of "everyone is equal," because that is a cultural assumption which the ancient Hindus did not subscribe to. In Hinduism, equality is not a feature of embodied life - it's something you attain when you get liberation.

Varna is different from Jati...Varna is more spiritual and Jati is more physical

Papayoni means taking birth in lower status or taking birth through a sinful parent etc.

Examples of varna not being based on birth FROM SCRIPTURE: 1. Viswamitra, composer of the holy Gayatri mantra, being a born kshatriya who reached brahminhood from tapsaya 2. Valmiki, a highway bandit, thief and murderer, who meditated on the mantra "ram" and became a sage. Composed the Ramayana. 3. Mahabharata, during a sacrifice Yudhistira pronounces the learned and unlearned men around him as brahmins despite them not being born as such : "What makes one a real Brahmin, is it birth, good conduct or learning? Neither birth nor learning makes one a real Brahmin, only good conduct does" 4. Rig Veda: the oldest of hindu scriptures itself states (IX.112.3), the poet refers to his diverse parentage: “I am a reciter of hymns, yet my father is a physician and my mother grinds corn with stones (labourer). We desire to obtain wealth in various actions"

Bt u can always improve ur class by ur hardwork n choice of work through ur expertise if u have a urge to

Dear Sir, you are doing wrong interpretation of papyoni verse ( verse 9.32) of Bhagwat Geeta.. It doesn't give any divine sanction to lower women status in society... Shri Krishna is actually stating that it doesn't matter whatever social class you belong... you will reach the supreme if you have complete devotion in him... He is actually stating prevalent social condition of that time and it should be read - even those who are considered sinful/ less privileged in society... all are capable of same level of spiritual development... That verse is actually negation of prevailing inequality and not some divine sanction to inequality as claimed by you and many others... After Krishna gave Geeta.. It was finally compiled by Vyas for general public in the form of poetry... And as you know poetry of even current poets on simple issues sometimes seem so difficult to grasp in terms of their true meaning ... And in Bhagwat Geeta we are talking of Supreme truth expressed in form of poetic conversation... It will be difficult for many to understand correct meaning and misinterpretation will come...but to get the true insight into the this spiritual ocean of Bhagwat Geeta .. Interpretation of enlightened beings of our centuries should be explored.. I would recommend the commentary of Paramhans Yoganandji on Bhagwat Geeta -- GOD TALKS TO ARJUNA.

Hindu odium is rising in institutes in European countries. This is very painful.

Dr. Sutton, your translation of Gītā 9.32 is incorrect. Women, vaiśyas, and śūdras are not qualifying the term "pāpa-yonayaḥ." Rather, these are categories of people *in addition* to those who are pāpa-yonayaḥ. Hence: मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य येऽपि स्युः पापयोनयः । स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति परां गतिम् ॥ गीता ९.३२ ॥ māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye ’pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ । striyo vaiśyās tathā śūdrās te ’pi yānti parāṁ gatim ॥ gītā 9.32 ॥ "By taking refuge in Me even men of evil birth, women, Vaiśyas and also Śūdras attain the supreme state." (Bhagavad-gītā 9.32) [translated by Swami Adidevananda] This is exactly how Śrī Rāmānuja takes it in his Gītā commentary: स्त्रियो वैश्याः शूद्राः च पापयोनयः अपि मां व्यपाश्रित्य परां गतिं यान्ति। "Women, Vaiśyas and Śūdras, and even those who are of sinful birth, can attain the supreme state by taking refuge in Me. How much more then the well-born Brāhmaṇas and royal sages who are devoted to me! Therefore, royal sage that you are, do worship Me, as you have come to this transient and joyless world stricken by the threefold afflictions" Consider this point. If women are of sinful birth, then anyone who takes birth of a woman is also of sinful birth. This is illogical and no one would accept that. The argument that men and women must be "equal" or else it is "oppressive," while incorrectly fashionable amongst today's young and uninformed elite, is illogical and not accepted by any orthodox Hindus. No two embodied beings are "equal" because each ātman has a different set of previous karmas from which it gets its present birth. "Equality" only applies to the ātman free of its karmas and its physical body, or in order words, after mokṣa. The whole point of the Gītā is to recognize one's subservience to Brahman, not one's equality to anyone else. For a lady to practice this subservience by meditating on Brahman in her husband (see Yājṇavalkya's instructions to his wives in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad in which this concept is discussed) is actually, in many ways, a superior sādhana to the man who must constantly accept this service while meditating on the ways in which he is not Brahman. In other words, the man is at risk for forgetting his subservient position, while the lady practices it on a daily basis. That's not "oppressive." It's a reality based on a different ideological and cultural basis which modern people all too often do not understand.

If you translate "varna" as caste, you lose the plot entirely. More important than what Krishna said is why he said he is the source of "varna"! It is because the four "varna" are the most desirable qualities we derive from the unmanifest divine source of infinite knowledge (purusha) - wisdom, nobility, industry and facility. It is what defines our orientation in life, our inner compass. By itself, it merely represents an unmanifest potential. Varna is not the four-fold order of society, it is the four cardinal points of our inner compass, one that gives us our outlook on life.

I wonder - is he an atheist?

When it comes to the position of women this person is a typical impotent feminist academic and thinks that because something is currently normative it should be followed as dharma. But the Vedas are not concerned with various ephemeral "isms" but with eternal truths that do not change. As Krsna says in the Gita 2nd chapter that of the real there is no cessation and that of the unreal there is no duration. This by definition what is ephemeral is unreal. That applies to all these modern "isms" because what is modern today will not be modern tomorrow, hence unreal. Manu puts it nicely: "All those traditions (smriti) and those despicable systems of philosophy, which are not based on the Veda, produce no reward after death; for they are declared to be founded on Darkness. All those (doctrines), differing from the (Veda), which spring up and (soon) perish, are worthless and false, because they are of modern date." MS 12.95-96 By definition 'dharma' is the essential unchangeable quality of a thing - the dharma of sugar is to be sweet, of chilies to be hot, etc. So male and females have their eternal dharmas that do not change. Attempting to change it via feminism-social marxism has only created great harm, destruction of society and unhappienss to women as many women are finding out and now rejecting as evidenced by kzfaq.info?search_query=women+against+feminism And then he makes the foolish assertion that since aham brahmasmi - we are (all) not the body but eternal soul - that then all bodies covering the soul are equal. When then does he not embrace a tiger, it after all is also a soul? Because teh body of teh tiger will kill and eat his body that is why. Just because we are not our body doesn't mean we have no body. Self realization not only means to understand that you are an eternal soul a servant of Krsna, but that as a soul you are entrapped in a material body, and to learn how to use that material body to serve God according to His desires. You have to approach Krsna on His terms not the latest normative values of modern society. For that we have to learn how to practically apply Krsna conscious into our everyday life. That is called dharma. Religion (dharma) without philosophy is sentimental or fanatical. But philosophy without dharma is speculation. And he is speculating wildly. THis is what a respected sannyasis recently said: "To do some other's duty means you don't understand yours. We will use the thing, 'Oh, we are not this body,' but the point is what are you going to do the work with? The body. So if you are not the body, why are you using it? The rules are connected to the body, and you say, 'Oh, we are not this body, Prabhu. So we can do whatever we want.' Yes, so, you as the soul do whatever you want. Leave the body out of it. The rules apply to the body, not to you, it's true. That's good. Good understanding. But the body is going to function according to those rules. You follow the rules, it works, you don't follow the rules - it won't work. So to think that I don't need to follow them is illusion. So therefore it won't have a good result." Regarding Manu Smrit, this academic is completely clueless. All followers of authentic sampradayas in India completely accept Manu as an extremely important text because it is all from the Vedas. It is glorified in the Upanishads and puranas and by all the acaryas. There are even concordances showing how verses from Manu are found in texts such as the Bhagavatam and others sastras. To get a much better understanding of how serious follows of Krsna's Vedic view the topic of the position of women see this text, which itself is a rebuttal of many of the arguments that he is advocating. archive.org/details/AnalysisOfEducationAndGurushipVaisnavis Another thing to consider is that of all the geographical regions that were subjected to destruction and rapine of the Islamic conquest the Indian sub-continent is the only place that didn't completely convert over to Islam. The Iranian Zoroastrians completely gave up their religion and converted en masse to Islam except a few who escaped to India. And that even though India was under Islamic rule for > 800 years still more that 80% kept to their own religion despite unimaginable atrocities committed against them. Why? Because the leaders of the main sampradayas simply refused to concede and they inspired others to resist. The lesson of history is that while it is inevitable that some people will be harmfully influenced by feminism (which harms women the most) those persons who follow the Vedas, who are dominated by satva guna and who by definition have unbreakable determination will never accept the evil of feminism and egalitarianism (cultural marxism) because it is abhorrent to Krsna's Vedic civilization. Another point it he quotes people like Ramakrshna, Gandhi and Dayananda Sarasvati who have been irrelavant to India for a long time. Sure people give some regard to Bapu but he was actually very foolish and the real libarator of India was Netaji, not Gandhi's foolish pacificism which teh British liked since no one got hurt especial the British. But when Netaji created the INA then the British decided to go home. As for Ramakrsna he is a nobody and his mission is in name only. Even more so for Dayananda. So you can quote them all day in university but they are no longer have any force, if they ever did.