<b>2 consecutive posts</b> related to the following material that Acharya pasted into his
Post #1:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The divisions within Hindu society that, in its extreme form, were displayed along the lines of of untouchability existed long before the arrival of british. Such divisions invariably led to a society that was quite<b> keen on preserving blood lines</b> - <b>a thesis</b> that is reasonably well-supported by genetic analysis of representative Indian population in India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->A thesis? Make that a hypothesis.
About this:
In Hinduism it has nothing to do with 'blood purity', that matter is only ever brought up when christos are embarassed about the obsession with 'racial purity' amongst themselves - a highly important aspect of the Syrian christian communities in India. Whenever that is brought up, everyone invariably accuses it of being another left-over Hindu trait when in fact it is specific to Syrian christianity. See <i><b>Example 1</b></i> posts 81-84 of the Thomas In India? History Of Christianism In India thread.
There's a difference between endogamy on one hand, and "racial purity" as exhibited by Syrian christians on the other.
Certain Dharmic tribes have long insisted on endogamy, like the next Example below. Many people all over the world do that. Many African communities have done the same. But this is not racism, it merely has to do with belief in continuation and constancy (of localised community). And also, it's not due to some 'caste system' either, for the simple fact that remote tribes have not come into the orbit of urban centres to become part of mainstream society and structure yet. Therefore, that they observe endogamy merely goes to show that this is indeed a natural phenomenon among humans and has nothing to do with "divisions in Hindu society" that "led to a society that was quite keen on preserving blood lines" (as in the quoteblock above). Because the genetic analysis of the Dharmic tribe in the following example would show they have been endogamous too and not 'because the evil mainstream Hindoos made them'.
<i><b>Example 2:</b></i>
Many groups in India have long been endogamous, and in their local beliefs they do stress endogamy as being the way in which salvation is effected in their community. Such as those that the 19th/early 20th missionaries classified as 'non-Hindu animists':
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/arti.../chr/sarna.html
<b>The Sarna: a case study in natural religion
<i>Ethnocentrism and endogamy</i></b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Mundas maintain their tribal identity by prohibiting intermarriage with other tribes: "The tribals of Chotanagpur are an endogamous tribe. They usually do not marry outside the tribal community, because to them the tribe is sacred. The way to salvation is the tribe." (p.43)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tribal endogamy explains the Hindu caste system. As Vedic society, an advanced and differentiated society characterized by class (varna) hierarchy, expanded from the Northwest into India's interior, it absorbed ever more tribes but allowed them their distinctive traditions and first of all their defining tradition, viz. their endogamy. This way, endogamous self-contained units or tribes became endogamous segments of Hindu society, or castes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And here the missionaries map out why these Dharmics - the Sarna Mundas - are supposedly <i>not</i> Sanatani:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Christian apologists in India have invested heavily in the proposition that tribals, <b>unlike Hindus</b>, are monotheists, <b>almost-Christians</b> who only need to learn of Jesus: "Sarna spirituality is marked by a strong belief in one God. A careful study of their religious beliefs and ceremonies shows that they believe in a Supreme Being whom they call <b>Singbonga which literally means Sun God</b>." (p.46)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Never did understand missionary logic.
About that second excerpt on the Sarna above:
India long ago found a way of getting various tribal communities to come together and live in the same society without treading on each other's traditions - by not enforcing intermarriage where it was not welcome. Each community (in most pre-globalisation countries) has its own special rules on marriage, with tribal communities being more conservative than urban ones in this respect.
It never occurs to the ignorants or modern psecular 'Hindus' that tribes might have sought to remain endogamous (seeking continuation of their regional community identity) and that it was not something that Hindu urban communities enforced on each other. Instead, Hindus developed a society that worked together. In fact, in India, it was the societal consent to preserve individual tribal identities (by respecting their endogamy) that made it possible to get more and more communities to form a larger population or get them into an existing large population. After long periods of time, eventually new community identities formed, and more complex rules of intermarriage developed. Sometimes certain restrictions on endogamy fell away as larger blocks of community were formed.
The biggest threat to any tribe is dissolving into another (larger one?) by intermarriage, and their identity being wiped out forever.
It is a myth that tribes breed enmity. Inter-community interactions act as symbiosis, how else would people learn to get on with unknown peoples. (The alternative is to be like the Roman Empire: enforcing assimilation into the empire on Gauls, Jews, Thracians, Germans, British Celts and others. But having said that, the Romans intermarried quite freely in general.)
Whether all the world being one tribe would or would not be the ideal situation is a moot thesis even at this stage. The fact is, there has always been in the past - and there continues to be today - many populations in the world who wish to remain distinct. Urban populations are more likely to intermarry because of increased contact and familiarity with other communities, and other such reasons. But remote peoples (like many tribes in Indonesia) often wish to keep their identity intact, you can't enforce assimilation on them.
Post #1:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The divisions within Hindu society that, in its extreme form, were displayed along the lines of of untouchability existed long before the arrival of british. Such divisions invariably led to a society that was quite<b> keen on preserving blood lines</b> - <b>a thesis</b> that is reasonably well-supported by genetic analysis of representative Indian population in India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->A thesis? Make that a hypothesis.
About this:
In Hinduism it has nothing to do with 'blood purity', that matter is only ever brought up when christos are embarassed about the obsession with 'racial purity' amongst themselves - a highly important aspect of the Syrian christian communities in India. Whenever that is brought up, everyone invariably accuses it of being another left-over Hindu trait when in fact it is specific to Syrian christianity. See <i><b>Example 1</b></i> posts 81-84 of the Thomas In India? History Of Christianism In India thread.
There's a difference between endogamy on one hand, and "racial purity" as exhibited by Syrian christians on the other.
Certain Dharmic tribes have long insisted on endogamy, like the next Example below. Many people all over the world do that. Many African communities have done the same. But this is not racism, it merely has to do with belief in continuation and constancy (of localised community). And also, it's not due to some 'caste system' either, for the simple fact that remote tribes have not come into the orbit of urban centres to become part of mainstream society and structure yet. Therefore, that they observe endogamy merely goes to show that this is indeed a natural phenomenon among humans and has nothing to do with "divisions in Hindu society" that "led to a society that was quite keen on preserving blood lines" (as in the quoteblock above). Because the genetic analysis of the Dharmic tribe in the following example would show they have been endogamous too and not 'because the evil mainstream Hindoos made them'.
<i><b>Example 2:</b></i>
Many groups in India have long been endogamous, and in their local beliefs they do stress endogamy as being the way in which salvation is effected in their community. Such as those that the 19th/early 20th missionaries classified as 'non-Hindu animists':
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/arti.../chr/sarna.html
<b>The Sarna: a case study in natural religion
<i>Ethnocentrism and endogamy</i></b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Mundas maintain their tribal identity by prohibiting intermarriage with other tribes: "The tribals of Chotanagpur are an endogamous tribe. They usually do not marry outside the tribal community, because to them the tribe is sacred. The way to salvation is the tribe." (p.43)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tribal endogamy explains the Hindu caste system. As Vedic society, an advanced and differentiated society characterized by class (varna) hierarchy, expanded from the Northwest into India's interior, it absorbed ever more tribes but allowed them their distinctive traditions and first of all their defining tradition, viz. their endogamy. This way, endogamous self-contained units or tribes became endogamous segments of Hindu society, or castes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And here the missionaries map out why these Dharmics - the Sarna Mundas - are supposedly <i>not</i> Sanatani:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Christian apologists in India have invested heavily in the proposition that tribals, <b>unlike Hindus</b>, are monotheists, <b>almost-Christians</b> who only need to learn of Jesus: "Sarna spirituality is marked by a strong belief in one God. A careful study of their religious beliefs and ceremonies shows that they believe in a Supreme Being whom they call <b>Singbonga which literally means Sun God</b>." (p.46)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Never did understand missionary logic.
About that second excerpt on the Sarna above:
India long ago found a way of getting various tribal communities to come together and live in the same society without treading on each other's traditions - by not enforcing intermarriage where it was not welcome. Each community (in most pre-globalisation countries) has its own special rules on marriage, with tribal communities being more conservative than urban ones in this respect.
It never occurs to the ignorants or modern psecular 'Hindus' that tribes might have sought to remain endogamous (seeking continuation of their regional community identity) and that it was not something that Hindu urban communities enforced on each other. Instead, Hindus developed a society that worked together. In fact, in India, it was the societal consent to preserve individual tribal identities (by respecting their endogamy) that made it possible to get more and more communities to form a larger population or get them into an existing large population. After long periods of time, eventually new community identities formed, and more complex rules of intermarriage developed. Sometimes certain restrictions on endogamy fell away as larger blocks of community were formed.
The biggest threat to any tribe is dissolving into another (larger one?) by intermarriage, and their identity being wiped out forever.
It is a myth that tribes breed enmity. Inter-community interactions act as symbiosis, how else would people learn to get on with unknown peoples. (The alternative is to be like the Roman Empire: enforcing assimilation into the empire on Gauls, Jews, Thracians, Germans, British Celts and others. But having said that, the Romans intermarried quite freely in general.)
Whether all the world being one tribe would or would not be the ideal situation is a moot thesis even at this stage. The fact is, there has always been in the past - and there continues to be today - many populations in the world who wish to remain distinct. Urban populations are more likely to intermarry because of increased contact and familiarity with other communities, and other such reasons. But remote peoples (like many tribes in Indonesia) often wish to keep their identity intact, you can't enforce assimilation on them.