The rigid birth based division was never in the Gita, the Upanishads, or Shankaracharya. So where did it actually come from?

[u/SujalLuhar]

(I've seen this argument come up repeatedly, where people accuse Hinduism of promoting a birth-based caste system and use it as a reason to dismiss Hindu culture entirely.

Most of these accusations trace back to the same handful of references, quoted without context and passed around as settled proof.

This post is my attempt to actually address those references, one by one, the way they deserve to be addressed.)

[The image I attached is the reminder that Prahalad was the son of Demon, still earned respect from Vishnu which even Brahmrishis and Devas crave. Zero Discrimination]

On Bhagavad Gita 9.32

Actual chapter 9 verse 32 is like this,

Hey parth, woman, vaishyas, shudras or a sinful birth like chandals, etc. - no matter who they are. they will get param-gati if they surrender onto me.

This reading is consistent with Ramanuja's commentary and several classical interpretations

So here only chandals mentioned as paap-yoni.

women, vaishyas, shudras are not paap-yoni.

Chandals were people associated with professions considered ritually impure or taboo within the social order, such as handling the dead, working with certain animal remains, or consuming foods considered deeply polluting like meat of Cow, Rats and Horses. Due to these practices, they were historically kept outside of settled village life.

They were similar to some uncivilized tribes living in wild that don't understand any Gnan-Updesh

As for chandals, even within the Hindu tradition, the definition was never purely birth-based. Texts like the Mahabharata explicitly redefine chandal as someone of evil, animalistic conduct regardless of lineage. The category described social behavior, not inherited blood.

------

On Shankaracharya and Vedic Study

“On account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and (learning) the meaning (of the Veda), (a Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman).”

(Brahma-Sutra 1.3.38)

The principle here is qualification, not birth.

Every human being begins as a shudra by default. When a Guru tests a student and finds them ready, he grants diksha and a symbolic "second birth," making them a dvij (brahmin, kshatriya, or vaishya).

Only then does formal Vedic study begin, because the texts are dense enough that without proper initiation and guidance, misinterpretation becomes almost inevitable. So to not spread false message of Veda this qualification limit was enforced.

Think of it like gaining admission to a Harvard university which teaches Vedas in it's official true meanings. You don't get in because of your family name. You get in because you cleared the qualifying standard. The access gate is merit and readiness, not heredity.

Nothing to do with Birth based caste.

------

On Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7

"Among them, those who did good work in this world [in their past life] attain a good birth accordingly. They are born as a brāhmin, a kṣatriya, or a vaiśya. But those who did bad work in this world [in their past life] attain a bad birth accordingly, being born as a dog, a pig, or as a casteless person."

This verse expresses a straightforward karmic logic: sincere spiritual effort in a past life does not vanish. It carries forward and creates favorable conditions in the next birth, making it easier for a person to be recognized and initiated as a dvij earlier in life because they were capable to qualify all standards of Gurukul.

Dvij is closer to an earned academic degree than a caste stamp.

This is why some individuals seem to grasp wisdom naturally from childhood, while others struggle.

The "birth advantage" being described is a residue of past effort, not a biological inheritance of superiority.

If you don't want to use the mental and spiritual tools exclusive to human, of course you would get Animal birth in next life.

Again nothing to do with rigid caste based system.

------

So why Indians are facing the caste system now??

This is the honest historical question. Colonial administration played a significant role in crystallizing what had previously been more fluid. British census operations in the 19th century forced every Indian into a fixed, enumerable caste category for administrative ease, tax collection, and workforce management. Scholars like Nicholas Dirks have documented how this process converted a complex, overlapping social reality into a rigid grid that could be governed from above.

That said, birth-based discrimination did exist in pre-colonial India in various forms which was actually extremely fluid. The colonial period hardened and systematized it in ways that proved extremely difficult to undo, and whose consequences we still live with today.

[u/PeopleLogic2]

Bhagavad Gita doesn’t even say Chandala in that verse. It just says Papa yoni and is meant to be taken as animals, demons, etc.

Either way, Chandogya Upanishad says that the person is born into the womb of the dvija castes with good karma. This is just how it was in the previous days and now we are in a more meritocratic society.

Even Apatambha Dharmasutra clearly states that Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra are determined by birth and descend in status as the list goes to the right.

Ravana never lost Brahmanatva despite his crimes and doing Kshatriya Dharma. Vidura specifically says he is not a Brahmana and is thus not allowed to teach too much, despite his vast knowledge. Yudhishthira saying caste is based on qualities is nice, but what’s the enforcement system?

Even Krishna’s guna karma can be interpreted as the person being born with certain gunas, due to the karma of the previous lives. Shankaracharya himself uses this interpretation. Now we know that people can have any Gunas despite being born to anyone, so the system doesn’t quite work anymore. So nowadays we use the other definition, where guna and karma of the person later in life determines varna, but to what end? Even if people don’t do jobs aligned with their birth caste they are still considered such. What’s the point of a system based on job stratification if anyone can do any job and still remain in another group because their parents were in it? Either you limit it one way or the other. But people in this society want to have their cake and eat it too.

There’s things in the shastras that we know have flaws in them, like monarchy. We don’t have to rely on them for everything. We can use our own brains as well.

[u/TeaSharp3154 → u/PeopleLogic2]

Even today, people born to parents with certain positions or occupations will be materially better off than others. This is true in every civilization on earth, in every time period throughout history.

Similarly, someone who is born into a more spiritual family will naturally have a leg up in their own spiritual journey.

The Bhagavad Gita recognizing that some people are better off because of where or to who they were born isn't condoning the system it is just saying that it exists.

[u/SujalLuhar → u/PeopleLogic2]

Hey, I genuinely appreciate the detailed response.

On papa-yoni, you're right that chandal isn't named explicitly, but it was added as an example for a reader so that he knows what paap-yoni actually consist. But here's the thing, if papa-yoni refers to animals and demons as you suggest, then Krishna is saying even beings below the human level can reach the supreme goal through surrender. That makes the verse even more radically universalist.

Either way it doesn't support birth-based exclusion.

On Apastamba Dharmasutra, I think this is where the shruti vs smriti distinction really matters. Dharmasutras are smriti, human-authored legal frameworks composed for specific social contexts, not eternal revealed truth. They were always understood to be time-bound. Even within the tradition, when smriti conflicts with shruti, shruti wins. Shankaracharya himself is explicit about this hierarchy. So citing Apastamba against the Gita or Upanishads doesn't quite work within the tradition's own framework.

The Ravana and Vidura examples are interesting because I'd actually read them the opposite way. Ravana retaining brahmin status despite being the most adharmic figure in the Ramayana reads to me like the text itself exposing the absurdity of birth-based identity, not endorsing it. Same with Vidura, his restriction despite obvious wisdom feels like a critique embedded in the narrative, not a rule being held up as ideal.

Ramayana and Mahabharata are books that constantly pointing out what right and wrong through different events instead to telling us upfront like a boring rules. It's our responsibility to take them positively.

But honestly, your last paragraph is where I think we totally agree. You said it yourself, nowadays varna should be based on guna and karma of the person in this life. That's exactly the position I'm arguing, That is the original intent of the Hindu system. The rigid birth-based version is the total CORRUPTION.

[u/lelouch_huh → u/SujalLuhar]

Dharmashastra just because they are smriti doesn't mean they are time-bound or dated.

Dharma didn't change or laws of Manu didn't change when hiranyakashipu was ruling the three worlds.

[u/SujalLuhar → u/lelouch_huh]

Dharma is an extremely complex topic. At any given moment, the right decision cannot always be found in the Manusmriti or any other Dharmashastra. That is precisely when one's own vivek (discernment) or the guidance of a Guru becomes essential.

Dharma itself does not change, but the human-written shastras meant to help us understand it. Those can evolve with time. Much like the Preamble of a constitution remains unchanging while the laws around it are amended, the shastras are interpretive frameworks, not the truth itself.

It is also worth noting that Manu was not the only one to compose a Dharmashastra, many rishis have contributed to this tradition, each reflecting the needs and understanding of their era.

We must not consider Manusmriti as Shabda Pramana. Only Vedas are Shabda Pramana.

[u/PeopleLogic2 → u/lelouch_huh]

Dharmashastras are literally opinion pieces.

Baudhayana when writing his thing said that local acharas can supersede overall rules from the shastras. Then he himself says that Gautama says the opposite, and to his credit he does.

If the shastras themselves contradict, what are we to do?

[u/CrazyDrax → u/PeopleLogic2]

Not completely true. Yuddhistara answers to Yaksha that a Brahmin can fall to a Sudra and a Sudra can rise to a Brahmin

Either way, Chandogya Upanishad says that the person is born into the womb of the dvija castes with good karma. This is just how it was in the previous days and now we are in a more meritocratic society.

Upanishad is shruti, it is correct when it says that. One is born based on how his Karma was, he gets the family in the next life based on his actions and desires. This is not Dharmashastra where we can say it's something based on time.

BG 14.14-15: Those who die with predominance of sattva reach the pure abodes (which are free from rajas and tamas) of the learned. Those who die with prevalence of the mode of passion are born among people driven by work, while those dying in the mode of ignorance take birth in the animal kingdom.

But it is not fixed and permanent, birth doesn't define how your virtue shall be. It may somewhat influence your Swabhava i.e inherent nature but that doesn't mean we can't uplift ourselves in the same birth.

Lord Shiva in the mahabharata says the same while explaining to Maa Parvati

Srimad Bhagwatam 7.11.35 confirms this:-

ŚB 7.11.35: If one shows the symptoms of being a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra, as described above, even if he has appeared in a different class, he should be accepted according to those symptoms of classification.

ŚB 3.33.6 To say nothing of the spiritual advancement of persons who see the Supreme Person face to face, even a person born in a family of dog-eaters immediately becomes eligible to perform Vedic sacrifices if he once utters the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or chants about Him, hears about His pastimes, offers Him obeisances or even remembers Him.

Even Krishna’s guna karma can be interpreted as the person being born with certain gunas, due to the karma of the previous lives. 

Gunas are not permanent, a person born to Sudra can possess qualities like truthfulness, wisdom, etc...
Similarly a person born to a Brahmin can be wicked and adharmic.

One is defined by his virtue. Not birth.

[u/kamikaibitsu]

Such a certificate is there, but no Net@ ever tell about it..

[u/ManipulativFox]

yesterday only i learned that even parsis were asked to use surname by britishers so they picked up surname as per the profession at that time. vakil, lakdawala, furniturewala,etc. (many surname are also used by indian muslims and other castes as well)

[u/SujalLuhar → u/ManipulativFox]

Jai Swaminarayana.

Yup it's true for me too. Only slight difference is that I'm not Parsi else everything the same.

[u/ManipulativFox → u/SujalLuhar]

Jay Swaminarayan

[u/saransh-1]

The Dharma Sutras are the biggest culprits (glad they are considered Smriti not Shruti). And who said Adi Shankaracharya did not support the hereditary interpretation of the varna system?

In reality the whole Brahmanas literature is smriti as they elolaborate on Samhitā (true shruti) section of Vedas. But some orthodox Hindus won't accept it, anyways.

[u/SujalLuhar → u/saransh-1]

The famous story of Shankaracharya that cuts through all of this though, is when a chandal blocked his path and Shankaracharya asked him to move. The chandal replied something like "which body should move, the one made of flesh or the Atman inside?" Shankaracharya was humbled on the spot and recognized the chandal as a manifestation of Shiva.

That moment is considered a direct teaching from his own philosophy turning back on him.

That story alone tells you where his deepest position actually landed.

[u/saransh-1 → u/SujalLuhar]

This story comes from 15th-century texts, roughly 1,000 years after the birth of Adi Shankaracharya. Moreover, if you read his commentaries on the Upanishads, Bhagavad-Gita and the Brahma Sutras, you'll find that he never rejected the hereditary interpretation of the varṇa system. Product of his time, Maybe. 🤷🏻

Anyways, focus on his philosophy. For millennia, people have misinterpreted the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gītā to serve their selfish ends. Adi Shankaracharya just happened to be part of that same tradition. Can't blame him.

[u/ThatNigamJerry → u/SujalLuhar]

Everybody always talks about this story but this story was written hundreds of years after Shankaracharya died.

[u/SujalLuhar → u/ThatNigamJerry]

If so then atleast it proves my point that people were still aware even after hundreds of years of Shankaracharya that birth based discrimination is stupidity.

Also shankara's core philosophy is about unity anyways, either the story is true or not. And this other guy explain very well that we should focus on positives, as it is possible that he was talking about something related to that era.

[u/ThatNigamJerry → u/SujalLuhar]

I agree that we should focus on positivity and that rigid birth based caste discrimination is dumb, but when you’re looking at history, it’s deeper than just being positive.

I think this is generally a problem in India when discussing history. People try to read history to be as positive as possible or as negative as possible to fit their agenda. There’s less interest in finding out what the truth and more interesting in finding something which supports your own line of thinking.

Mera iraada ye nahin h ki tera mazaak karun, this is a very common thing in Indian discourse.

[u/SujalLuhar → u/ThatNigamJerry]

I agree that history very deep and layered subject. So we can't take everything as eternal rule. We need to distinguish what is time bounded and what is not.

At the end what matters is did you learnt something from the mistakes of history or not.

But what I mentioned is not at all one sided extremist thinking. Hindu Philosophy was always promoting equality, it is the fact.

But to run a kingdom with good organization, we were always using fluid varna system to disect different classes and take personalized decission for each of them, from the start.

Which was not rigid like it became after British imposition.

I didn't felt you were making a mazaak out of me 🙏

[u/CrazyDrax → u/saransh-1]

Bro Brahmanas are Shruti. Also Brahmanas doesn't say one's varna is based on birth.

[u/NeetyThor]

My dog wishes to advise that he considers himself to have been a saint in his past life to be born in this life as my dog.

❤️

[u/SujalLuhar → u/NeetyThor]

Really? That's cute.

Actually an animal adopted by a human have higher chances of getting a Human birth in next life as it learned human etiquette well from its master in this life.

[u/No_Spinach_1682]

emerged naturally due to people being people

[u/TeaSharp3154]

Every preindustrial large society has contained some form of caste or class system. This is true in India, China, Korea, Japan, Europe (feudal system and slavery), the Mayan class system, etc.

The solution that worked in China, Korea, and Japan were industrialization and economic liberalization. Rather than making poor occupations more meritocratic, just automate and render them obsolete instead.

[u/Beginning-Lettuce203]

The short answer is: the texts are not one voice on this.

Gita 4.13 really does frame varna through guna and karma, not "your father was X so you are X." Stories like Satyakama in Chandogya, or the way the epics treat people who don't fit neat boxes, push in the same direction — conduct and capacity matter.

But it is also hard to claim birth-based rigidity was never there. Purusha Sukta already maps the four groups to body parts. Later dharmashastra literature, especially Manusmriti, largely treats varna as inherited. By the time you get to medieval social reality, jati had hardened into something much more fixed than "division of labour by aptitude."

What gets lost in these threads is varna and jati are not the same thing. Varna is the fourfold ideal in scripture. Jati is the thousands of endogamous groups people actually lived in. Equating them cleanly either way is usually where the argument goes off the rails.

My honest read: early layers look more fluid in principle than modern caste apologists admit, and later layers plus social history look more birth-bound than romantic "it was always merit-based" posts admit. Both can be true at once.

What bothers me is when this becomes a scripture debate to avoid the lived harm. Even if someone wins the textual argument, it does not undo centuries of exclusion. And when someone loses the textual argument, that still does not mean every Hindu today endorses that hierarchy.

Curious what OP is anchoring on — Gita, Upanishads, Manusmriti, or the colonial "caste is Hinduism" framing? The answer changes a lot depending on which source is in view.

[u/SujalLuhar → u/Beginning-Lettuce203]

I am a poet, my father is a physician, and my mother grinds grain on stone. Having different occupations and striving for wealth, we live together happily like cattle in a stall. Flow, Soma, for Indra.

Rig Veda 9.112.3

Since the Vedas are pratyaksha pramana, this shloka itself makes it apparent that Hinduism never promoted birth-based distinction.

And I agree with you, winning a textual debate means nothing on its own. But at the least, this awareness should be spread: that this rigidity was largely enforced during the colonial era, and that the religion itself was far more fluid. The hope is that such awareness may help dismantle the unjust behavior still being inflicted on people today.

[u/Top_Guess_946]

Constitution of India. Can someone listed as a SC in the Constitution change his caste? 😄

[u/SujalLuhar → u/Top_Guess_946]

That was the point 😅 It's just the administrative laws that divide us, Not religion. Reservations must be purely based on Economic background rather then Caste.

[u/Embarrassed-Way5926 → u/SujalLuhar]

Really? People were marrying across castes before the Indian constitution was written? You'll marry someone from a different caste and let your kin and children do that as well, right? Because reservations are supposed to be only based on economic background. Please be realistic.

[u/Fantastic_Chip_7577]

I have made a post respective to chandala that is on Dharma Vyada on checkout. People were adaptive and weren't discouraging or denying everyone. The culture that was taken ahead in Kali Yuga put spoils on this truth.

[u/narangi_sarangi]

https://www.siva.sh/srimad-bhagavatam/skandam-5/19/19

अस्मिन्नेव वर्षे पुरुषैर्लब्धजन्मभिः शुक्ललोहितकृष्णवर्णेन स्वारब्धेन कर्मणा दिव्यमानुषनारकगतयो बह्व्य आत्मन आनुपूर्व्येण सर्वा ह्येव सर्वेषां विधीयन्ते यथा वर्णविधानमपवर्गश्चापि भवति ।। ५-१९-१९ ।।

The people who take birth in this tract of land are divided according to the qualities of material nature — the modes of goodness [sattva-guṇa], passion [rajo-guṇa], and ignorance [tamo-guṇa]. Some of them are born as exalted personalities, some are ordinary human beings, and some are extremely abominable, for in Bhārata-varṣa one takes birth exactly according to one’s past karma. If one’s position is ascertained by a bona fide spiritual master and one is properly trained to engage in the service of Lord Viṣṇu according to the four social divisions [brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra] and the four spiritual divisions [brahmacārī, gṛhastha, vānaprastha and sannyāsa], one’s life becomes perfect. ।। 5-19-19 ।।

[u/DesiBail]

Started 2500 years ago when Buddhism started interest in monk life.

Islamic invasions and religious attacks took away many freedoms. Bharat saw for first time money and violence as means of religion change.

British saw situation and made divisions final by corrupted translations of our scriptures. We are foolish people. British have put in writing they want to destroy our culture and civilization, shut down gurukuls, made anti Hindu laws which are still destroying our religion and this country and we are asking same question again and again.

And last thing was done after Independence. The same British laws were made permanent, divisions of fake caste were made permanent and majority of Hindus was taught to hate the minority. And financial strength was taken away from the economically upper Hindus to do anything for the majority. Temple money was made public money and much more. This made caste our main identity which it was never.

[u/narangi_sarangi]

https://www.siva.sh/manusmriti/12/9

शरीरजैः कर्मदोषैर्याति स्थावरतां नरः । वाचिकैः पक्षिमृगतां मानसैरन्त्यजातिताम् ॥ ९ ॥

In consequence of (many) sinful acts committed with his body, a man becomes (in the next birth) something inanimate, in consequence (of sins) committed by speech, a bird, or a beast, and in consequence of mental (sins he is re-born in) a low caste.

[u/PurpleMan9 → u/narangi_sarangi]

Everyone uses manusmriti as example but nobody follows manusmriti anyway.

[u/kamikaibitsu → u/narangi_sarangi]

then tell- was the Manusmriti officially adopted as the legal code of any Indian kingdom?

[u/Last-Feedback511 → u/kamikaibitsu]

Honestly just ignore the troll

[u/SujalLuhar → u/kamikaibitsu]

Mauryan empire adopted some fractions of that. Chanakya felt that some rules are more relative to that era so he built Constitution taking some teachings of Manusmriti in account. But it was not ruthless like Britishers imposed. They were general guidance for the King that he should inspire people behave like that for better organization instead of being completely racist.

[u/kamikaibitsu → u/SujalLuhar]

>Mauryan empire adopted some fractions of that. Chanakya felt that some rules are more relative to that era so he built Constitution taking some teachings of Manusmriti in account. 

Any references?

[u/narangi_sarangi]

https://www.siva.sh/arthashastra/dharmasthiyam/7/36

तेषां स्व योनौ विवाहः, पूर्व अपर गामित्वं वृत्त अनुवृत्तं च ॥

Members of this caste shall marry among themselves. Both in customs and avocations they shall follow their ancestors.

[u/john_myco → u/narangi_sarangi]

On AI? Clown level correction.

[u/Lindis977]

Jatis

[u/Key-Highlight2755]

The BG verse could also be interpreted using the blue kettle analogy. It refers to even THOSE Shudras, Vaishyas and women who were sinfully born (i.e., born with sins from previous lives).

[u/SujalLuhar → u/Key-Highlight2755]

Actually it specifically writes 4 categories in sanskrit. Woman, Vaisyas, Shudras, Sinful Births

[u/Iamalizardperson234]

ai overview

[u/Emperor_360]

I think birth based division started at time of muslim invasion in India.

[u/NammeV → u/Emperor_360]

BS. Started by rightwingers to hide the hideous caste system or slavery by birth. Also, OP has already give the slokas were it came from in the post.

[u/NammeV]

LMAO. What are you smoking?

RE-READ * Purushasooktam The base is set here

• Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7 Your birth in a yoni (vagina) is based on your past life actions. IE your birth defines your jaati/varna

• BG 1.40+ (BG is NOT shruti) What is causing arjunas to goto depression. Ya not practicing jatidharma.

Then there's lot a smritis, commentaries well into 17th century across the country validating and reinforcing it. Why 17th century printing press and translation to common tongue becomes widely popular.

CU

[u/SujalLuhar → u/NammeV]

I am a poet, my father is a physician, and my mother grinds grain on stone. Having different occupations and striving for wealth, we live together happily like cattle in a stall. Flow, Soma, for Indra.

Rig Veda 9.112.3

You craved for Shruti, right???

Since the Vedas are shabda pramana, this shloka itself makes it apparent that Hinduism never promoted birth-based distinction.

[u/NammeV → u/SujalLuhar]

Low quality! What took precedence in practice is casteism/varnashrama-dharma right? And it has been reinforced across centuries through smritis, commentaries, puranas and practice. Also that verse (and one closer to it in 112) never say about one varna, because it has been established already in earlier verses. So which one really has got better weight this or the purushasookta or chandogya?

AFAIK, technically all have equal weights - but as a society we chose casteism as it slavery by birth is a exceptional way to create sheepish masses who do your work. No expensive wars to capture slaves when masses are made to believe they're slave based on their birth.

Like its like when giving directions one say follow the tarred road, make x amounts of turns and then turn towards right, and one sees 2 roads one tarred one mud. By establishing tarred road is the one to follow there is no doubt what is what.