# Caste



## Jazz (May 16, 2006)

WGJKK WGJKF ....

Moving off at an slight angle, please read below and offer comments .... 


Both my Mother and Father believe that all caste differentiation was abolished via Guru Ji, they believe that we are all equal in status, that we are all sikhs.

Fathers view is that Guru Gobind ji made all castes equal, but did not abolish them. My Mothers view is that all castes are equal, and are abolished at time of baptism(amrit).

Furthermore, I would like to ask : Guru Gobind Singh Ji renamed the panj pyare SINGH, why do we have a 'family' name at the end, does this not follow caste identification?

Can I have your comments please.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 18, 2006)

Gurfateh

Brother Amritpal Singh of Amritworld has views like that of your father but das has more support for your mmothers views.

Gurus did convert mnay Muslims also.Say Sayyads of Gildiyals near Rawal Pindi ie ancestors of great scholar Sher Singh Kashmeer(who proved that Dasham Granth is from Tenth Master),Baheemi was converted to Ajmeer Singh,Whole Nihungs were from Shias.

So we know that no caste could be assigned to them.


----------



## drkhalsa (May 18, 2006)

Dear Friend 

As I understand using your family name for what ever reason created confusion and could lead to discrimination at some point and definately it represents the sense of attachment to somebody else beside our Spirtual father ( Guru Gobind Singh Ji) whether it is your great grandfathers , ancester or inherit ego inside you .

Said so I dont want to mean that people all who dont use surmane are without ego but still it is much simpler and promotes unity in Sikh Panth



Jatinder Singh


----------



## Randip Singh (May 18, 2006)

Jazz said:
			
		

> WGJKK WGJKF ....
> 
> Moving off at an slight angle, please read below and offer comments ....
> 
> ...


 
Guru Gobind Singh ji said:

Manaas Ki *Jaat* Ehk Pachano

Recognise the Human *Race* as One

Here Jaat means race. It can also mean caste, creed and gender. I don't think I need to elaborate further than that. 

If you are recognising your fellow human as somehow inferior or a different type of Human than you then you have no place in Sikhism.

Guruji abolished castism, racism and sexism in one swift blow when those swords tudded in the tent and the Panj Pyarey were baptised.

As for surname......I think that is done for practical purposes. Even Guru Gobind Singh Ji acknowledges in the Dasam Granth his lineage.....but he also acknowledges that in the bigger picture it does not matter one iota.


----------



## bulleshah (May 21, 2006)

Caste has been misinterpreted as being hereditary whereas Krishna states clearly
in the Bhagavad Gita that caste is a classification of people's potential. A single
family might have children with qualities that are suitable for Brahmins, Kshatri-yas,
Vaishyas, or Shudras. 

A child interested in academics can be said to have Brahminical qualities; the one
wanting to join the armed forces can be said to be Kshatriya-like, the one who
prefers business has Vaishya gunas and the one who likes serving has Shudra gunas. 

You might even find more than one trait in one person. Microsoft's Bill Gates,
for instance, can be said to be of *quadri-caste* since his functions and aptitude
contain elements of all four castes. 

Attributing everything in Creation as being dominated by three gunas saatvic,
rajasic and tamasic Krishna says that all beings are under the influence of these gunas. 

The three qualities determine our intelligence, emotions, behaviour, actions, habits,
impul-ses, everything. Unlike other life forms, human beings have the capability
to hone and polish specific skills and qualities. Krishna the perfect counsellor
tells us which vocation to follow to gain the ultimate goal of self-realisation. 

For example, there are nine functional qualities of a Brahmin as enumerated by Krishna:
serenity, self-control, austerity, purity, forgiveness, simplicity, scriptural proficiency,
spiritual attainment and adherence to theological principles (18.42). 

A competent warrior must have qualities of heroism, resplendence, and fortitude (18.43). 

When rajoguna is mixed with tamoguna it gives birth to Vaishya-like qualities, says Krishna,
and they pertain to agriculture, animal husbandry, and commerce. 

Some are naturally interested in service, and so are suitable for those professions that
require a predominantly service-component. Whatever one's potential and interest,
the ultimate aim is self-realisation, and not self-gratification. These qualities do not
bestow any special status on anyone; they are not even hereditary. 

Krishna states: "The four divisions have been created by Me according to the
classifications based on natural qualities and functioning but in this act know
Me as the immutable, *Non-doer*" (4.13).

*There is no nobility in these divisions, as they are merely functional. *

The aim of life being self-realisation, the two pillars which help this are varna and ashram.
Varna based on natural tendencies can help in deciding the appropriate field of activity
which would help in achieving the goal of life. 

To consider oneself superior or inferior is not sanctioned by shastras for such a perception
leads to self-degradation. One who is born in a trader's family, for instance, might have
an advantage due to environmental parameters but there can be exceptions. 

*The most important factor in choosing a profession is one's natural aptitude.*
*Choosing a profession one likes or for which one has the aptitude gives inner*
*satisfaction and leads to self-realisation. *

*Thanks.*


----------



## Jazz (May 22, 2006)

randip singh said:
			
		

> Guru Gobind Singh ji said:
> 
> Manaas Ki *Jaat* Ehk Pachano
> 
> ...


 
WGJIK WGJIF

Brother Randip,

Guru Ji abolished the differentiation between all sikhs / castes.
Guru Ji abolished the caste moniker at baptism by securing only a SINGH surname.

I have a open mind on this subject, however your above quote does not contradict the above.  

Please elaborate if poss.


----------



## Jazz (May 22, 2006)

bulleshah said:
			
		

> Caste has been misinterpreted as being hereditary whereas Krishna states clearly
> in the Bhagavad Gita that caste is a classification of people's potential. A single
> family might have children with qualities that are suitable for Brahmins, Kshatri-yas,
> Vaishyas, or Shudras.
> ...


 
WGJKK WGJKF

Brother Buleshah,

If your first sentance is true, then the misconception of heredritary 'tag', is generations wide, and on a worldwide scale. It is unfortunate indeed that thousands convert 'from' Hinduism towards another faith such as Islam, due to this 'misconception', and thousands more dismiss it as an avenue / path when 'looking' for God, for this reson again.

Tell me, who is it that defines this 'tag', is it the head of the family, head of the local Mandir, or Head Teacher? Is it not this 'tag' that leads certain people to be rejected from some Mandirs in India, and deemed 'untouchable' by others?


Jas


----------



## Lee (May 22, 2006)

I am not of Indian decent so perhaps it is easy for me, but the simplicity of it is there is no room for caste, or toughts of caste within Sikhi.  Just the thought that one man is lower than another is alien to Sikhi, and the idea that this is so based on what family name you have seems plain idiotic to me.


----------



## bulleshah (May 22, 2006)

*Jazz and Lee,*

I was not expecting much from the progeny of the clergy of the Golden Temple, led by Arur Singh,
who had honoured the massacring Gen Dyer by declaring him a Sikh, on condition that he renounce
one cigarette a year.......But I'm forced to continue to reply to such Neo-Sikhs. You see, like them,
I'm caught in a trap of my own making -- The Incredible Heaviness of Being Macho. If I ignore your
post, it'll be taken as my inability to refute your rank garbage; and if I begin explaining, it'll be
perceived as a chicken-hearted retreat in face of the malevolent campaign aimed at my views.
What to do. A retro-Sikh-Hindu can be no less daft. Therefore, let me assert by saying:
I do NOT retract a single word from what I said.

Your claim that Sikhism is caste-free and that this sets it apart from Hinduism (on the assumption
that caste is intrinsic to Hinduism), is simply untrue. Every Hindu knows that Sikhs have not
ceased practising caste. The acknowledgement of caste identities was presumably acceptable
to the Gurus, for the Gurus themselves married their own children according to traditional caste
prescriptions. The anti-caste thrust of the Gurus’ teachings must be seen as a doctrine which
referred to spiritual deliverance and a firm rejection of injustice or hurtful discrimination based
on caste status. What is not implied is a total obliteration of caste identity. 

Sikhs marry with Hindus of the same caste, while they still avoid marriage with Sikhs of
different castes. Likewise, Sikh politics is largely divided along caste lines, e.g. the Akali
movement is one of Jat Sikhs, shunned by low-caste Sikhs (who are called Mazhabi Sikhs,
that is, Sikhs by religion alone, e.g. former Congress minister Buta Singh) and by the
higher Khatri and Arora and Bedi castes to which the Gurus belonged. 

Please don't talk to me of any casteless society in India -- where even Muslims and Christians
demand reservations for their OBCs. Why didn't anyone challenge Tara Singh's demand vis-a-vis
Harijan Sikhs? What's a Khatri, Jat, Shimbae, Kumiar...? What's written in scriptures, isn't what
Indian society follows -- so cut the crap. 

*Thanks.*


----------



## Lee (May 22, 2006)

Bullesha,

Sorry hate mail?  I just don't get it?

What I said was there is no room for caste or issues of caste in Sikhi.  I made made no claims of Sikhi being free of caste, only that it should be, I made no mention of Hinduism either in fact, what I said was I don't get this caste thing, because I am not Indian, nor of Indian origin.  For me who has not been brought up in that culture the very idea for a man to be worth less than another man is alien to me, I also said that the very idea of one man being being worth less than another man based on his family name is plain stupidity.

Now perhaps you got upset with my ignorance of caste and the Indian culture, or perhaps you are just being over protective of some imagined slight I have offered you I don't know but hate post?  Really, show me, please.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 22, 2006)

Gurfateh

Dasjust wnats to put traditioan or Sanatan Sikh views over here.Das did reply to isues raised by BroBulleshaha with same text somewhere else.

Anyway das can say that Pursh Sutras of Vedas say that Brahmin came fromhead,Kshtriya from Armand Vaishya fromthighs and Sudra from feet.

So far by that only caste based peoplesay that thier Birth or Jati isassuch from that Brahmin or other castes.

But it is due to evilmind of evil Kaliyuga.

They forget that source of allfour is one Father God.

So Sa Jat Sa Pat Hai Jete Karm Kamaye means that that Godonlyis Casteor Gotraor Totumof allfrom which we get Salvation.

When unprecedented evil comes in Kaliyuga via God then God is not bound by scriptures of preivous Three Yugas that new scriputre with new methods willnot come to fight new situtation.

Sodo we have Gurmat.

Coming to Lord Krishan factor.

As per him in old scriptures ,humans can have Four Varna and Human Jat or race ws concerned.

If we see Akalustat,Dev(Angels)Adev(Demons),Jachchh(Sea dwellers),Gandrap(Rock dwellers),Turak(Turks),Hindu are result of influnece of different natioans attirer.

Again Vachitar Natak states that Angel is Called ,one who does good deed and demonn is called evil doer.

But within Mahabhrata,we have Lord Krishna becoming Happy on the death of Gatochkach,Son of Bheema And Demon Wife Hiddimba.

We says otherwise in orderr tocleance demons ethinaclly later,he himself would have killed Gatotkacha,Inspiteof factthat he was half man.

And in fact Krishna does KillsGhatochkachha son Barbareek,And his rebrith is That of Khatu Syam Ji.Juistashe was from blood of demons.

This is Hindu interpetation and as per them alldeomsn were killed.


Gurmat does not under stand Lord Krishna doing so and such stroy is not placed in Dasham Granth.Ved Vysa might have said something Hindus miss.Both father nad son had power which was weapon similar to mass destruction,which lead to Lord Krishna being happy on thier death or killing them.


Anyway sometimes das feeles pity on those Hindus,who try say we are monthiest and casteless faith.Our Faith is more toserve God in unioverse and so we serve universe .To do that as our worship we donot have to recoganse caste,race,relgeon,gender,area etc.

Anyway in Punjab,we have seen peoplefrom various so called lower caste becming Kingsof Sikh,Jathedar of Akal takhat,and similar things in Sikhs who are not punjabi in morestrong way.

But in Hindu Areasof north India,when we go to rural Area,Daseven once provided a weaon to lower caste Hindu,Reason was that,that Dhanuk(Weaver) was not allowed towear Turban in the village of Rajputs(Rulers) nor was alloed to ride horse during marriage procession.

Das just request not to feel bad if someone says that we are having caste in us,just get motivated.

1 to end the source of Caste in us ie Hinduism(itslef a racialism).If root is elimanted then no tree willbe there.
2. Just wait and watch that caste supporters will have divisioan of Hindu socity themsleves(In India presently we have grave divisoan in Hindus and strikes are therein hostpitals on that).We do not have to do anything but can just tellthem to end caste else caste will end them  .

Das alsosaw another thing that inspite of telling Bulleshah that Mazhabi is Muslim convert to Faith,yet he stil does not understand.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 22, 2006)

Gurfateh

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/history-of-sikhs-sikhism/8752-sikhism-historical-background-2.html


----------



## Jazz (May 23, 2006)

Jazz said:
			
		

> WGJKK WGJKF
> 
> Brother Buleshah,
> 
> ...


 
WGJJK WGJKF

Brother Bulleshah, I asked this and you replied ....



			
				bulleshah said:
			
		

> *Jazz and Lee,*
> 
> I was not expecting much from the progeny of the clergy of the Golden Temple, led by Arur Singh,
> who had honoured the massacring Gen Dyer by declaring him a Sikh, on condition that he renounce
> ...


 
My comments were comments, My questions were just that, questions.  The way you have responded is like you are upset, why are you upset? Is life difficult? Is it all getting too much for you?  Can you not understand the questions that are being asked? Do you believe in a faith that instructs you not to reply in a cival manner? or is there a invisible war that you are fighting?

Wake up my foolish brother, assist in the learning.

I ask a question, not to ridicule, but to learn.  If you cannot assist then by all means do not respond to them.


----------



## Jazz (May 23, 2006)

bulleshah said:
			
		

> *Jazz and Lee,*


 
Quite promising ....



			
				bulleshah said:
			
		

> I was not expecting much from the progeny of the clergy of the Golden Temple, led by Arur Singh,
> who had honoured the massacring Gen Dyer by declaring him a Sikh, on condition that he renounce
> one cigarette a year.......But I'm forced to continue to reply to such Neo-Sikhs. You see, like them,
> I'm caught in a trap of my own making -- The Incredible Heaviness of Being Macho. If I ignore your
> ...


 
Dribble driblle ..... your so funny ... are you 10?



			
				bulleshah said:
			
		

> Your claim that Sikhism is caste-free and that this sets it apart from Hinduism (on the assumption
> that caste is intrinsic to Hinduism), is simply untrue. Every Hindu knows that Sikhs have not
> ceased practising caste.


 
I think that caste is a bad thing, due to what people have made it mean in society over the ages, regardless of its foundations/intentions. Your last sentance above is immature and unneccessary.



			
				bulleshah said:
			
		

> The acknowledgement of caste identities was presumably acceptable
> to the Gurus, for the Gurus themselves married their own children according to traditional caste
> prescriptions.


 
Presumed, assumed ... oh well ... 
I lay witness to the fact that in my group of friends and family, not all, but the majority of them have married within thier own 'caste', without caste as a criteria. Does that mean anything .... does that prove anything ... not at all ... but feel free to presume ... assume ..



			
				bulleshah said:
			
		

> The anti-caste thrust of the Gurus’ teachings must be seen as a doctrine which
> referred to spiritual deliverance and a firm rejection of injustice or hurtful discrimination based
> on caste status. What is not implied is a total obliteration of caste identity.


 
Excellent opinion, and written very well at that. This was all you really needed to say to bring your point across. As in my original posting this view is held by my father, and he gives the same reasons as you have here.



			
				bulleshah said:
			
		

> Sikhs marry with Hindus of the same caste, while they still avoid marriage with Sikhs of
> different castes. Likewise, Sikh politics is largely divided along caste lines, e.g. the Akali
> movement is one of Jat Sikhs, shunned by low-caste Sikhs (who are called Mazhabi Sikhs,
> that is, Sikhs by religion alone, e.g. former Congress minister Buta Singh) and by the
> higher Khatri and Arora and Bedi castes to which the Gurus belonged.


 
To err .. is human, and in this case not a religeous trait.



			
				bulleshah said:
			
		

> Please don't talk to me of any casteless society in India -- where even Muslims and Christians
> demand reservations for their OBCs. Why didn't anyone challenge Tara Singh's demand vis-a-vis
> Harijan Sikhs? What's a Khatri, Jat, Shimbae, Kumiar...? What's written in scriptures, isn't what
> Indian society follows -- so cut the crap.
> ...


 
Again more immature rantings .. would it not be reasonable to discuss, and not 'fly off at the handle' due to what you and only you precieve as attacks on your way of thinking/opinions.

The original explanation of the caste system from Lord Krishnas time was very enlightening, and yes I learnt something I did not know. Your second posting put forward a very strong view on this subject, which is shared by many, regardless of the way it was put forward.

The foundation of the caste system may have had noble intentions for the welfare of all persons, however these good intentions have fallen on rocky ground over the ages, discrimination on a global scale has taken place, lines have been drawn out for,how people can pray, meet, learn, marry, or progress in life. This does apply accross the board ... Hindu .. Sikh .. Muslim .. etc

My question is .... do we pronounce the caste tag as dead, and try to move ahead without a caste system at all, or do we try to educate the people of the intentions of the caste system?, all the way from a few of my friends, who say they are hindu, but have no knowledge of the origins (as explained by yourself), all the way through to the institutional discrimination rooted, heavily within the Hindu community and, to a lesser extent, within the 'Sikh' community?

And do you think either would work?

Lastly, Brother Bulleshah, you are one of a community of educated persons on this forumn, I learn from this forumn everyday, and would appreciate if you could provide answers to my previous post and this one as a Brother and not a child.

Jaswinder.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 23, 2006)

Gurfateh

anyway das will put some light on the issue of qoutes from Bhagwat Gita he gives as Anti Caste.

Same quote so far are used by some castist Hindus to prove caste.Just to put respeactable face so far such verese are changed in version and when danger is off agani inhuman caste in brouught back.

Thing here is that He may not knoe Sanskrit and there is term ja there which is used for birth then say understanding and knowldge and as per same verse it is Said that Barhimns due to birth/family have such qualties and that is racialism.

But das will say that verse as per Bulleshah are Ok.

Then das had a fight with evengalist over another verse of Holy Gita.


As per mercy of Krsna,Sudras,Women and other Heen(lowers) Yonis(Castes) may get salvation.

so far Indians psudo pandits used term Heen Yoni for lower caste but truth is that sudra may mean ileaitrate labuerer,it may mean women with heen yoni ie {censored},which can get salvation as elvenglasist agreed to das.

similar are verse in Ramchritar manas of goswami Tulsidas.

Dhol Gawar Sudra Pasu Nari Ye Sab Taran Ke Adhikari

Agani as per pseud Brahmins and evenglist who pray upon casteim it is

Drum,illetrate,Sudra,Animal and women are worthy of beating.

But dass wrote it Drum ,illetrate lower,animal(like) women are worthy of beating.

again things does not end here.in one of the Purana,Britishers or whites are same monkeys,who helped Sita and Rama against Ravana and hense as a blessing got to rule India.

That is not racialsim but not considering humans as humans.Muslims are tagged as demon species.In our scriptutes such things are calrified.Anyway resus monky can enter Jaganath Puri Temple but White man also deemed as monky can not.

niece of das as half white russian and half Hindu is perhaps a pruduct of animal man realtioship and may not be allowed.


Justfiying caste by Hindus by giving examples in other faiths is like Osama bin Laden jstifies his act of terror based upon minor acts of viaolence by US lead coaliation.Racialism in semitic faith(Sikhs included) is offically Baned and is due to pagan influence.While Hindusim itself is pagan culture and jsutiying race by name itself.

Then he says that he is Mon,rather he could be a Hindu altogather.

Mona guys are no where less see our Bro Plamba.often in Anti India movement there guys even were more catuous to support it as they wanted to do more to express thier things as by visiblity they do not loooked like Sikh.

In North part of Ranjit Singh kingdom away from British border and before coming of Britishers did Nirankari Movement was started and by Sahijdharis.


They are unlike Sanatanis as they only belive in Scriptures of Gurmat and nothing else.We have faith that God made Vedas and Kateebs but they do not.

He says neo Sikhs have a look.

These guys within the time Ranjit Singh in frontier Area did strange things.

1. Did Anand Karaj replacing fire but in Right to left way.Nihungs previously did left to right.
2.Guru did write about Krishna(Arrival into Delhi to Meet Pandvas) and Lav kush(During Yagnas) killing cows in Dasham Granth.Guru killed Nilgai(deemed cow by Hindus) as per Bijai Mukt Sakhi 10 supported Churhas killing cow for meat and leather saying that Leather of Tabla and muscical instruments are obtaied like that.

But Nirnkarie themselve killeed cows.

so such are Monas or Sahijdharis.

till this date Das is not liked by Nihungs for eating beef.We ahve three catogores of Sikhs due to conduct in Nihungs.
1.Bebcki like AKJ but belving in Raagmala.
2.Guru Panth or real Nihungs,can take all intoxicants but tobbaco,do not eat dead animal and cow.
3.Mazhabi,can smoke,can eat dead animal and can eat cow.Due to last das himslef vlouteered for this.Anyway smoking thing is now banned in them also.

But 1 to 3 can move from 1 to 2,2 to 3,3 to 1 and vice versa and reforms are still on(Trascript of talk with baba Nidder Singh Ji).

As not All hindus are not from RSS so we can not make fun of all to genralised them all as RSS,but in Brahmincal or rather pseudo brahmniacal mentilty genralsisation is main thing.Tagg all Muslims as villian,Tag all sikhs as jokers,Tagg all Chrsitan as salable item etc.

So tagging all Sikhs as AKJ,is simklar mentailty.


----------



## bulleshah (May 24, 2006)

*Jazz,*


```
To err .. is human, and in this case not a religeous trait.
```
 
And Human traits always overshadowed religion. All the great ideas propounded by the Human
mind had been killed by Human nature. Human nature always wins.

The merely theoretical and logical people have always failed to understand man. They have
never looked into his psychology.

LOGIC IS ONE THING... and unless we try to understand man more psychologically and less
logically, we are always going to commit mistakes. 

ACCORDING TO THE MARXISTS, the whole problem is simply the class division between the
poor and the rich. They think that if all government power goes into the hands of the poor,
and they have a dictatorship of the proletariat -- when all classes have disappeared, and the
society has become equal -- then soon there will be no need of any state.

They are all concerned with the society. And that is where their failure lies. As I see it,
utopia is not something that is not going to happen, it is something that is possible, but
we should go to the causes, not to the symptoms. And the causes are in the individuals,
not in the society.

For example, Marxism lasted more than seventy years in in Soviet Russia, and the communist
revolution was not able to dissolve the dictatorship. Lenin was thinking that ten or fifteen years
at the most would be enough, because by that time we would have equalized everybody,
distributed wealth equally -- then there would be no need for a government.

BUT AFTER FIFTEEN YEARS they found that the moment you remove the enforced state,
people are going to become again unequal. There will be again rich people and there will be
again poor people, because there is something in people which makes them rich or poor.
So you have to keep them in almost a concentration camp if you want them to remain equal.
But this is a strange kind of equality because it destroys all freedom, all individuality.

The basic idea was that the individual would be given equal opportunity. His needs would be
fulfilled equally, he would have everything equal to everybody else. He would share it. But the
ultimate outcome was just the opposite. They almost destroyed the individual to whom they
were trying to give equality, and freedom, and everything good that should be given to individuals.
The very individual was removed. They became afraid of the individual; and the reason was that
they were still not aware that however long the enforced state lasts -- seventy or seven hundred
years -- it will not make any difference. The moment you remove control, there will be a few
people who know how to be rich, and there will be a few people who know how to be poor.
And they will simply start the whole thing again.

Although the people were poor, still they wanted to cling to their property. At least they had
something; and now even that was going to be taken out of their hands. They were hoping to
get something more -- that's why they had had the revolution, and fought for it. Now what
they had was going to be taken out of their hands. It was going to become government property,
it was going to be nationalized.... And for small things -- somebody may have had just a few hens,
or a cow, and he was not willing... because that was all that he had. A small house... and he was
not willing for it to be nationalized.

These poor people -- one million people were killed to convince the rest
that nationalization is good for them.

As time passed, they found that there was no way to keep people equal without force.
But what kind of a utopia is it which is kept by force? And because the communist party
had all the force, a new kind of division came into being, a new class of the bureaucrats:
those who had power, and those who didn't have any power. It was very difficult to become
a member, to obtain membership of the communist party in Russia, because that was
entering into the power elite. The communist party created many other groups
-- first you had to be a member of those groups, and you had to be checked in every way.
When they found that you were really reliable, absolutely reliable, trustworthy, then you
could enter the communist party. And the party was not increasing its membership
because that meant dividing power.

The party wanted to remain as small as possible so that the power was in a few hands.
There was now a powerful class. For more than seventy years the same group was ruling
the country, and everybody else was powerless. The people were never so powerless
under a capitalist regime or under a feudal regime. Under the czars they were never so
powerless. It was possible for a poor man, if he was intelligent enough, to become rich.
Now it was not so easy. You may be intelligent, but it is not so easy to go from the powerless
class into the class which holds power. The distance between the two classes was far more
than it was before.

It was a repeat of Hinduism. What Manu did 1500 years ago the Marxists did in the 20th century.

The other ism's, including Sikhism, are no different. The people in powerful positions
SGPC,Tat-Khalsa-Singh-Sabha variety) too are afraid of the individual.

*SIKH* is derived from the sanskrity word of _*“sikhsa”,*_ meaning the learner. If we are learner’s
we should be applying the techniques of learning; passionate debate, constructive criticism,
clarity and REASON! (do not undermine human reason). But to criticize the Sikh faith on
certain aspects is becoming ineffectual for me, nobody listens, especially the people on the
far right. Bu I am going to criticize anyway to reach out to the very few that understand.
The reason why I criticize certain aspects of faith is certainly not to offend anyone, I believe
that a liberal-minded and critical approach is lacking in our religion, this is offsetting serious
religious doubts in the mind of youth such as myself. Those who believe criticism is a negative
thing and breaks a religion are utterly wrong. Criticism is the bases on which a religion EVOLVES
(take note people from the far right) and comes out stronger and more resilient.

I myself am a Sikh and have all the right in the world(India is a free country) to criticise things
I don't agree with. How shall one discuss Sikhi or anything without Sikhi or any such idea, no matter
how great, itself being open to criticism ?? Even blasphemy is an integral part of all quest for Truth.
The Sikh Gurus themselves were an example of this tradition of critique. So boys, if you want to be
proud of who you are develop some confidence and real faith in what you say you believe in.

Remember the Sikhs were considered liberal minded “back in the day”, which is why they
suffered atrocities as our teachings conflicted with the teachings of the existing Islamic state.
If you are a true Sikh retain your liberal mind and move forth this STATIC faith that has
become detached from reality. How can we forget that ?? How can we abuse a Brahamin
in the domocratic world . The Brahamana is considered preist by the Hindus. An equivalent
of the Granthi. The Hindu scriptures contain lot of pronography but none of the Hindus or
their shakraacharyas have ever raised the question of pronography and it's removal.
Let us see when ever such demand is raised how do the Hindu devouts rataliate.
And if you ask me... I am sure they will give me all the reason in the world to continue
to be proud of whatever I believe in. I am a real Sikh. A Sikh-Hindu. Searching for the truth.
Maintaining a distance from those who claim to have found it.

Every-thing that is not sikh(as defined by London-Toronto-Neo-Sikh clowns) is our enemy
they proclaim. Superstitious, idol worshipper Hindu... we all cry.

But if we find the _Jutti_ of any Guru we start bowing from a 100 yards to pay our respect.
If some body found some stone at some place and said that these are the stones which
one of the Guru's used in Modi Khana, we build Big Gurdwawa's and _Mela's_ are held and
the stones are worshipped . If some body said that Guru Gobind Singh drank milk in a
holed Jug we spend loads of money to pay homage.

All the hindu corruptive attributes that the Sikh Gurus and Hindu Saints like Namdev
long before Nanak denounced have today been adopted en-masse by the Sikh themselves.
No body calls a Hindu adharmi if he doesn't wear a janneyu but a sikh is branded as an
out-cast by even his own relatives if he trims his hair. I am an atheist and never hide my
believes or lack of them. But every Ganesh festival I am there at the fore front to carry
the idol on the day of immersion and nobody has ever bothered. They all know I don't
actually give a damn about God(though I am open to the idea of it's existence if some-one
can convince me). I am free to enter the neighbourhood Shiv Temple and nobody cares
that an athiest is distributing prasad. And I am cent-per-cent certain that nobody in the
Guru-Dwara is ever going to allow me to distribute prasad.

Whenever I think about all this I am reminded of the story behind Shivratri. The story goes
that when during the amrit-manthan along with the amrit of life even vish was produced in
an equal measure. Shiva descended from his abode and in order to cleanse the amrit decided
to drink away all the vish that could have killed all life as soon as it began. In doing so,
though he saved the world, he himself turned blue.

The same is with Sikhism. If we have to go by the definition of A sikh by western Akali-Neo-Sikh
scholar or even the SGPC clowns, shaven Sikhs (or even those who use ‘fixo’ or other similar
cosmetic products, to smarten-up their facial hair) are not true Sikhs; the Amli Sikhs and
Ram-garhiya Sikhs, Nirankari's, Nihang's, Sanatani's are not a part of ‘true Sikhdom’; and those
who do not subscribe to the demand for a separate Sikh state don’t even belong to human race.  

A God turned against itself. An edifice created by the Human mind decimated by Human nature.

*Thanks.*


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 24, 2006)

Gurfateh

Das is sorry but this bulleshah is up to get Hinduism insulted again and again.

It is up to him that when will he stop doing this.Those who have glass houses do not pelt stones untoothers.



> bulleshah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
so far you donot know the Truth which is God.

God does all evil and does all God(Old Testment).


----------



## Singh jr (May 25, 2006)

Jazz said:
			
		

> WGJKK WGJKF
> 
> Brother Buleshah,
> 
> ...


 
Interesting ...

Did anyone reply to this?


----------



## Deepinderpaljitpreet (May 28, 2006)

idont know much about this but caste system is always practised in hisdu religion.
You see from first guru to tenth guru its same vein but still people like Kabir Bedi never use Singh nor as Kiran Bedi. I myself a jatt from Amritsar region and my Surname is older then Bedi  used to be the centre of Punjab but a border these days.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (May 28, 2006)

Gurfateh


True Follower of Vedas needs to follow Purush Sutra and need to see God in all so racial considerations needs to be left so no castes as per Holy Vedas.


----------



## bulleshah (May 28, 2006)

*Hinduism and the Caste System*

Manu made Hindu society into four classes. There is no mobility. You are born a brahmin; that is the only way to be a brahmin. And that is the highest society, the topmost class. Then number two is the warriors, the kings -- the _chhatriyas_. But you are born in that caste, it is not a question that you can move. Then third is the class of the _vaishyas_, the business people; you are born in it. And the fourth is the _sudras_, the untouchables. All are born into their caste. That's why, until Christianity started converting so many Hindus, particularly the sudras, who were ready, very willing to become Christians, because at least they would be touchable.... Amongst Hindus sudras are untouchable, and there is no way to get out of the structure. For your whole life you have to remain the same as your forefathers remained for five thousand years. For five thousand years there has been a stratified society. If somebody is a shoemaker, his family has been making shoes for five thousand years. He cannot do any other work, he cannot enter into any other profession. That is not allowed.

HINDUS WERE NOT A CONVERTING RELIGION, because the great question was, if you convert somebody, in what class are you going to put the person? Christianity is a converting religion because it has no classification; you simply become a Christian. If Catholics convert you, you become a Catholic; if Protestants convert you, you become a Protestant. But in Hinduism you cannot be converted, for a simple reason: Where will you be put? Brahmins won't allow you, and you would not like to be put with the sudras, the untouchables. What is the point of coming to a religion where you will not be even touched? Even your shadow will be untouchable. A brahmin has to take a bath if the shadow of a sudra falls on him. The sudra has not touched him, but his shadow is also untouchable.

It is the most ancient religion, still Hinduism has not been spreading; it has been shrinking. Buddhism spread all over Asia, and it is only twenty-five centuries old. Hinduism is at least ten thousand years old, or more, but it could not spread for the simple reason that birth is decisive. You can be a Hindu only by birth, just as you can be a Jew only by birth -- and these are the two most ancient religions. These are really the two basic religions.

CHRISTIANITY AND MOHAMMEDANISM ARE OFFSHOOTS of Judaism; and Jainism and Buddhism are offshoots of Hinduism. Jainism and Buddhism are both the rebellion of the second class -- the chhatriyas, the warriors -- because they had power. They were the kings, they were the soldiers, they had the power -- and yet the brahmin was on top of them. So naturally, sooner or later they were going to revolt, and finally they did revolt. Gautam Buddha and Mahavira are both from the second class. They wanted to be first class, they had the power, and the brahmins had nothing: Why should they be the highest class? So it was a rebellion.

But it was a strange thing that although these two religions got out of the Hindu fold, only Buddhism could spread all over Asia. Jainism could not spread out of India. Buddhism managed to spread out of India: from India it disappeared, but it took over the whole of Asia. And the reason was that it was through Gautam Buddha's very compassionate mind that he allowed anybody to enter into Buddhism.

JAINAS, ALTHOUGH THEY had also rebelled against the brahmins, remained of the same mind -- that they are higher than the other two classes. They wanted to be higher than brahmins too, but they never started converting anybody, because who would they convert? Brahmins will not be ready to be converted -- they are already higher than everybody. Only sudras can be converted because they will be raised on the evaluation scale. But Jainas -- Mahavira and his group -- were not so compassionate as to take them in. So Jainism is not a complete culture -- it has to depend on Hinduism for everything -- it has remained only a philosophy. No Jaina can make shoes -- some Hindu sudra has to make the shoes. No Jaina can clean the toilets -- some sudra has to do that work. Although they rebelled against brahmins, their rebellion was just against the superiority of the brahmins, and they wanted themselves to be higher than the brahmins. But they were also not in favor of the lower classes being taken higher.

The ultimate result was that Jainas have remained a very small religion, confined in numbers. And because they left Hinduism, rather than rising higher than brahmins, they even fell from the second category. Because they left Hinduism, they were no longer chhatriyas. They were no longer considered to be warriors -- and they could not be, because of their nonviolence. They had to drop the idea of fighting, so the only way was to become business people. Lower you can go -- nobody prevents you -- so they had to go from the second class to the third class, and they all became business people. So the rebellion failed very badly. Jainas wanted to become higher than the first class; the outcome of their revolution was that they went from the second class to the third class.

And they are absolutely dependent on Hindus. For their manual work they need workers -- they cannot work. And because they became business people, slowly, slowly the Hindu vaishyas, the Hindu business people, and the Jaina business people came closer. Even marriages started happening between them. By and by they even had to ask brahmins to do their worship work -- and they had money to pay for it. So brahmins worshipped for the Jainas -- who are against brahminism, against Hinduism; but they had to use Hindus for everything. Their shoes are made by the sudras; their toilets are cleaned by the sudras. Their properties have to be protected by the chhatriyas, because they cannot take the sword in their hands. They cannot kill, so they cannot fight, they cannot go to war; they have their security force in the warrior race. And finally their priests -- the brahmins came in from the back door as their priests.

*The Utopian Idea of Manu*

Manu tried this immobile society -- which is still the same -- five thousand years ago. That too was a kind of utopia, because he was thinking in terms of there being no class struggle this way.

THE CLASS STRUGGLE can be dropped in two ways. Either there should be no classes; then there will be no class struggle.... That's what communism was doing, but it has failed because a new class has appeared. The other way is that the classes should be so stratified that there is no question of one person moving into another class. No struggle will be there, so there will be no competition. The brahmin will remain a brahmin. He will remain on the top; whether he is poor or rich does not matter. The businessman will remain a businessman. Just because he is rich he cannot become a brahmin, he cannot purchase the caste. He cannot rise; he will remain third class, however rich he is. The sudras will remain sudras: they have to do all the dirty work and they cannot move from there.

This was also a utopia. The idea was that if the classes are completely static, there is not going to be any struggle, competition. In a way Manu succeeded more than Marx, because for five thousand years his idea has remained in practice, and in India the Hindu society has never been in a class struggle. The poor are there, the rich are there, but that is not the real problem for the Hindu. His real problem is those four classes, which are absolutely static.

But that is very dangerous because you prevent people from moving in a direction where they can find their potential fulfilled. A sudra may prove to be a great warrior, but he will never be allowed. A brahmin may prove a great industrialist, but he cannot lower himself. So it saved the society from class struggle, but it destroyed the individual and his potential completely. The genius was ruined. In just the same way it happens n communism, the individual is destroyed, his genius is ruined. He cannot move upwards even if he has the capacity.

*A Society of Enlightened People*

THERE HAVE BEEN attempts all over the world to make a harmonious human society, but all have failed for the simple reason that nobody has bothered why it is not naturally harmonious.

It is not harmonious because each individual inside is divided, and his divisions are projected onto the society. And unless we dissolve the individual's inner divisions, there is no possibility of really realizing a utopia and creating a harmonious society in the world.

So the only way for a utopia is that your consciousness should grow more, and your unconsciousness should grow less, so finally a moment comes in your life when there is nothing left which is unconscious: you are simply a pure consciousness. Then there is no division. And this kind of person, who has just consciousness and nothing opposed to it, can become the very brick in creating a society which has no divisions. In other words, only a society which is enlightened enough can fulfill the demand of being harmonious -- a society of enlightened people, a society of great meditators who have dropped their divisions.

INSTEAD OF THINKING IN TERMS OF REVOLUTION and changing the society, its structure, we should think more of meditation and changing the individual. That is the only possible way that some day we can drop all divisions in the society. But first they have to be dropped in the individual -- and they can be dropped there. It is almost like the fourfold division as Manu conceived the society. You have the conscious, you have the unconscious, you have the collective unconscious, and you have the cosmic unconscious. These are the four divisions within you; as you go deeper you go into darker spaces. Manu also divided society in four. The most conscious part is the brahmin -- he makes up the topmost, the wisest part. But he starts with the society.

When Manu first divided the society, somebody may have been a wise man, but it is not necessary that his sons and daughters will also be wise, that generation after generation the wise man will create only wise people -- that is a stupid idea. So the first division may have been very accurate. He may have sorted out people correctly: the conscious people on the top, then less conscious people, then more unconscious people, then absolutely unconscious people. And if Manu calls absolutely unconscious people "sudras," untouchables, there is nothing wrong in it; philosophically it is absolutely right. But practically he went wrong because he did not think that it would not always happen that the unconscious people would produce unconscious people.

It happened that all the enlightened people came from the second class -- that is from the warriors -- not from the brahmins, which were the topmost class. It is very strange. Even Hindu incarnations -- Rama and Krishna -- they all belonged to the second class; they were not brahmins. Buddha and Mahavira -- they were not brahmins. So the brahmin class has not produced a single enlightened person, because they became very self-satisfied. They were on the top -- what more do you need? Everybody was going to touch their feet; even the king had to touch their feet. They were the purest people, so there was no urge to find more; it was enough. It was very satisfying and gratifying to their egos.

Why did it happen to the chhatriyas, the second class? My understanding is, because they were second class, there was an immense urge for them to surpass the brahmins, and the only way they could find to surpass the brahmins was to become enlightened. Then only could they surpass the brahmins; otherwise they could not. The brahmins are the most learned scholars. The chhatriyas had to attain something which is higher than learning and scholarship. They had to attain something which is not given by birth, so brahmins cannot claim it. Just by birth nobody can claim enlightenment.

It only happened in the second class because it is part of human psychology that the closer you are to the highest class the more competitiveness is within you. The more distant you are the less hope you have that you can manage to compete with the brahmin. The businessman cannot think he can manage to compete. The sudra of course cannot even imagine or dream that he can manage anything. He is not allowed even to read; he is not allowed to be educated. He is kept completely enslaved in his unconsciousness, so there is no question of a sudra becoming enlightened.

THE BUSINESSMAN HAS another competition, and that is of money. That is a horizontal competition amongst businessmen. He is trying to compete to have more money, and he knows he cannot compete with the warriors: a businessman is not a soldier. And he cannot compete with the priest because a businessman is not a scholar, and the brahmins kept a complete hold on all the great ancient scriptures and literature. They were only to give those books to their children, to their descendants. For thousands of years those books were not printed, although printing started in China three thousand years ago, and it could have come to India without any difficulty. People must have been aware -- they were constantly coming and going to China. If Buddhism could spread all over China, it is impossible that they could not have brought back the mechanism and understanding to print.

But brahmins were against printing. They were even against printing their scriptures when the Britishers came -- three hundred years ago -- and took over India from the Mohammedans. It was against their will that the scriptures were printed, because they were afraid that once they are printed, they become public property. Then anybody can read them, and anybody can become a scholar. They wanted to keep them to themselves, so there were only handwritten copies which were kept as a family tradition: so each family has its own handwritten copy of certain scriptures. The brahmins monopolized it.

The chhatriyas, the second class, tried -- and that was a great effort -- to become enlightened to surpass the brahmins. But it is very significant to understand that by becoming enlightened they became divisionless, their being became one. And certainly they became higher than any human being who was divided. There was no question about their superiority. So even brahmins would come to the enlightened people without bothering that they came from the second class. Brahmins have touched the feet of non-brahmins -- which would have been impossible otherwise. But once the non-brahmin has become enlightened then the brahmin knows that what he knows is only parrot-like. What this man knows is not parrot-like. He is not a scholar, he is really a knower. So hundreds of brahmins were disciples of Buddha, hundreds of brahmins were disciples of Mahavira.

*The Harmony of Meditation*

The world can come to a harmony if meditation is spread far and wide, and people are brought to one consciousness within themselves. This will be a totally different dimension to work with.

Up to now it was revolution. The point was society, its structure. It has failed again and again in different ways. Now it should be the individual; and not revolution, but meditation, transformation.

AND IT IS NOT SO DIFFICULT as people think. They may waste six years in getting a master's degree in a university; and they will not think that this is wasting too much time for just a degree which means nothing.

It is only a question of understanding the value of meditation. Then it is easily possible for millions of people to become undivided within themselves. They will be the first group of humanity to become harmonious. And their harmoniousness, their beauty, their compassion, their love -- all their qualities -- are bound to resound around the world.

My effort is to make meditation almost a science -- so it is not something to do with religion, so anybody can practice it, whether he is a Hindu or a Christian or a Jew or a Mohammedan, it doesn't matter. What his religion is, is irrelevant; he can still meditate. He may not even believe in any religion, he may be an atheist; still he can meditate.

MEDITATION HAS TO become almost like a wildfire. Then there is some hope.

And people are ready: they have been thirsting for something that changes the whole flavor of the society. It is ugly as it is, it is disgusting. It is at the most, tolerable. Somehow people have been tolerating it. But to tolerate is not a very joyful thing.

It should be ecstatic.

It should be enjoyable.

It should bring a dance to people's hearts.

And once these divisions within a person disappear, he can see so clearly about everything. It is not a question of his being knowledgeable, it is a question of his clarity. He can look at every dimension, every direction with such clearness, with such deep sensitivity, perceptiveness, that he may not be knowledgeable but his clarity will give you answers which knowledge cannot give.

This is one of the most important things -- the idea of utopia -- which has been following man like a shadow for thousands of years. But somehow it got mixed up with the changing of society; the individual never got looked at . Nobody has paid much attention to the individual -- and that is the root cause of all the problems. But because the individual seems to be so small and the society seems so big, people think that we can change society, and then the individuals will change.

This is not going to be so -- because "society" is only a word; there are only individuals, there is no society. The society has no soul -- you cannot change anything in it.

You can change only the individual, howsoever small he appears. And once you know the science of how to change the individual, it is applicable to all the individuals everywhere.

And my feeling is that one day we are going to attain a society which will be harmonious, which will be far better than all the ideas that utopians have been producing for thousands of years.

The reality will be far more beautiful.

---OSHO---

*Thanks.*


----------



## max314 (May 28, 2006)

Caste is a social construct.

It is not 'evil' as long as there is no discrimination.

If it is a way that allows a given society to function efficiently within the practical parameters dictated by the necessities of every-day life, then it's fine.

If it becomes a basis of discrimination...well, then you're losing your humanity and should be ashamed of yourself before acting to remedy your prejudice and lack of faith in The All.


----------



## Lionchild (May 30, 2006)

well if someone wants to be shoe-maker or accountant, it's up to them... the caste system (no matter how you dress it up) is not a good idea. One reason india is so behind everyone else... there are some people who think they are ontop of everyone nad everyone else should just lick their feet... what a dumb system, i'm so glad i'n not from a culture/country liek that.

I love canada :u):


----------



## kds1980 (May 30, 2006)

Lionchild said:
			
		

> well if someone wants to be shoe-maker or accountant, it's up to them... the caste system (no matter how you dress it up) is not a good idea. One reason india is so behind everyone else... there are some people who think they are ontop of everyone nad everyone else should just lick their feet... what a dumb system, i'm so glad i'n not from a culture/country liek that.
> I love canada :u):



india is so behind because it is very thickly populated
with the area of 3200000 sq km it has population of
1.1 billion on the other hand canada has thrice the size of india but population of 20 million
india do not have vast natural resorces like oil coal etc


----------



## Lionchild (May 30, 2006)

kds1980 said:
			
		

> india is so behind because it is very thickly populated
> with the area of 3200000 sq km it has population of
> 1.1 billion on the other hand canada has thrice the size of india but population of 20 million
> india do not have vast natural resorces like oil coal etc



well the caste issue is really only a piece ofthe pie in all of this, like you said, there India does not have alot of resources... but i'm sure it's more complicates than that...


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jun 1, 2006)

Gurfateh



			
				bulleshah said:
			
		

> *Hinduism and the Caste System*
> 
> Manu made Hindu society into four classes. There is no mobility. You are born a brahmin; that is the only way to be a brahmin. And that is the highest society, the topmost class. Then number two is the warriors, the kings -- the _chhatriyas_. But you are born in that caste, it is not a question that you can move. Then third is the class of the _vaishyas_, the business people; you are born in it. And the fourth is the _sudras_, the untouchables. All are born into their caste. That's why, until Christianity started converting so many Hindus, particularly the sudras, who were ready, very willing to become Christians, because at least they would be touchable.... Amongst Hindus sudras are untouchable, and there is no way to get out of the structure. For your whole life you have to remain the same as your forefathers remained for five thousand years. For five thousand years there has been a stratified society. If somebody is a shoemaker, his family has been making shoes for five thousand years. He cannot do any other work, he cannot enter into any other profession. That is not allowed.
> 
> ...


 
when ever you meet osho dear bro,

Slap him.

if he is dead then slap on his spirit.

Reason is that he did not uniderstand Manu Samrit correctly.

He was preahps first to codyfy the law.

He did a great job and only thing he did was to do divison of Labur in Aryan socity correclty.

Later on vested interests did do good wrong by misinterpreting his book.As per Arya Samaj there could be interpolations also.But das finds that more is to do with misinterpetations.

Das salute King Manu.Thing only fit for that time was there and moire to do with deeds or labour as Karmic pricinple is there.

As before Manu there could be differmnt law so after hisn time we can have differnt law.

Say if you read Ved Vysa's Brahm Sutra and Bhashya or tresite on it by Adi Shaknara Charya,it condems all 5 and more philosophies other then Vedanta.It did happen only 1500 years ago.

So even misinterpetaions did not devide ancestors of Hindus as Nath Yoga,Vedanta etc, did maintined eqality,best Exmaple was when all acstes united and fought under the guiandce of Baba Gorakh Nath Ji and leadershipof Bapa Raval and did defeat Junaid,Arbas after 100 years stoped at the bank of Indus forever and Sind was wrested back from them soon(Sindh Became Muslims only after Sumeru Rajputs were replced by Sambhar Rajputs and ,who covnerted to Islam during Delhi sultanate time and were thence called Jaams).


But one thing was common in fopreces of Bapa Rawal ie worsjip of Nirankar(formless God),had Nath yoga did not loose to hindu idloatory,We still would have saffron flag on Kabul.

As Nath yoga became highjacked by idolators so Great Naths went to hills,with remorese so India was annexed by turkss.

Guru Nanak did complain to Sidhs on why did they leave public in lurch and went into jungle and what would happend to faith(Sidh Gost,Guru Granth Sahib Ji).


----------



## bulleshah (Jun 6, 2006)

Lions child,

>>>>what a dumb system, i'm so glad i'n not from a culture/country liek that.<<<<

You must be wearing black eye lenses...black dye...

*Thanks.*


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jun 8, 2006)

Gurfateh

Caste system may exist as racialism say in Africa where natives hate Asians or Europians.Or say our BNP people in UK.But we need to uproot it hwereever  it is in world.


----------



## Anonymous_Kaur (Mar 16, 2008)

Jazz said:


> WGJKK WGJKF ....
> 
> Moving off at an slight angle, please read below and offer comments ....
> 
> ...


 

family name..lool....i just fink it separeates sikhs..cos it's to do with the catse system fing..init !!

Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave all sikh men the lastname "Singh" and all Sikh women the lastname "Kaur". Everyone is considered equal in Sikhism. 

i dont fink sikhs are allowed to use their family names..there's no need !!

put SINGH or Kaur behind your name..to show that you belong to the khalsa ...nt to a caste !!


----------



## KiranSall (Jul 21, 2011)

We have last names so the people who believe in caste could easily tell what caste you belong to. and they do follow caste identification


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 22, 2011)

KiranSall said:


> We have last names so the people who believe in caste could easily tell what caste you belong to. and they do follow caste identification



Kiran, even that is confuding.

Let me give you an example.

I have met people who are surname Sall, who are Jatt and Tarkhan. Both claim the surname is *their* heritage, and to be honest, if you looked at their physical appearance, they look similar. Maybe we have more in common anyway? Both claim ancesters from "X" village dating back many years.


----------

