Form 1900-Human Care Qualifications Form: Fill & Download for Free

Soy has been getting a bad rap lately and frankly, it's starting to annoy me.All of a sudden the whole world is an expert on soy. Everyone I talk to seems to be able to recite at least 15 reasons why it shouldn't be eaten, which range from the mildly amusing to the clinically insane.I had a seemingly intelligent and well-informed friend tell me recently that she has stopped eating soy because it is GMO industrial waste being fed to the masses by the 1% to make us all sick and reduce the population. Or something.Come on, world.Really? I mean... really?Soy, my good people, is a type of bean. Like any natural whole food, it contains compounds that can be potentially harmful as well as compounds that are amazingly beneficial. It is the job of the eater to select the best source possible, prepare it correctly and consume it appropriately.So what about all those things we've been reading in the media?Yes it is true that soy contains phytic acid. But what they don't tell you is that we are talking about levels lower than just about every other grain or legume, including wheat and rice. And the question as to whether phytic acid is bad for us is controversial - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it fights cancer, heart disease, depression and a whole host of pretty awful conditions. Wow, huh?Yes: it is true that soy contains phytoestrogens. But there is a lot of doubt around the question as to whether plant estrogens are actually detrimental to human health. Resveratrol, the key health constituent in red wine that the whole world is raving about at the moment, is also a powerful phytoestrogen and I don't see people avoiding wine like they do soy - quite the contrary. The fact of the matter is, phytoestrogens actually have a protective role against many health problems, from cardio arrest to breast cancer. Data suggests they may become harmful if consumed in massive quantities, but you shouldn't be doing that with respect to any food in the first place. Everything in moderation.Yes: it is true that most U.S. grown soy is genetically modified (GMO). So choose organic! It's not rocket science. Eating it in its unadulterated, organic state also means it won't be laden with Round-up. That's a double win right there!Yes: tofu is a processed product. But not all processed foods are created equal. If you really have an aversion to buying things wrapped in plastic, here's an idea - make your own tofu! I made a batch of tofu just this morning and it tastes no less than superb. There seems to be some confusion on the part of many Westerners about what tofu actually is and how it is made. Try making it for yourself and you will quickly learn that the “processing” involves cooking, removing the fiber (which you can put in your cookies and burger patties) and then adding some sea water, which magically turns it into jelly. You want to know what is heavily processed? Breakfast cereal. Try making a corn flake in your kitchen and you will see what I mean.Why are we hearing all this negative stuff about soy?When you hear a lot of hype about any food - positive or negative - you have to look at where the information is coming from. Citing random 'scientific' studies does not suffice. You need to trace where the money to fund the studies is coming from and who is disseminating the information.The case currently being made against soy is coming from two key sources: the American Dairy Association and the Weston A. Price Foundation.Think about that for a moment.When consumption of soy milk increases, who is the biggest loser? Yep, the dairy industry."But what about the Weston A. Price Foundation?", you say. "They're independent and objective and they emphatically say that soy is killing us!"Well actually, no. The Western A. Price Foundation is funded by farmers of pork, beef, chicken and lamb, not to mention makers of milk, butter and cheese. Who stands to lose when we all switch to tofu instead of steak? Is it really surprising they are seeking to cause a stir?Isn't it best to avoid it though, just in case they are right?Ermm.. no.Let's look at the evidence. There are at least 2 billion people currently living in countries where soy is eaten heavily. The country that eats the most of it per capita is Japan. Have you ever cared to look at the health statistics of Japan?I have. I live in Japan and am an expert in Japanese culture by profession. The incidence of breast cancer was negligible here right up until when Western influence disrupted traditional eating patterns, causing dinner menus to incorporate things like beef steak and pasta, after which all of a sudden breast cancer became 'a thing'.As meat consumption rose and soy consumption fell, what else happened?The people started getting sick, that's what happened. Cancer, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes... you name it, they started getting it. In alarming numbers.How on earth this alone is not good enough evidence of the healthfulness (or at least the basic safety) of soy is beyond me. The race of people who eat the most soy are arguably the healthiest race on earth. Hello~!?Ah but the Japanese eat mostly fish, not soy. They only eat soy in tiny portions and it's always fermented, that's why they don't get sick from it. Right?Hogwash.There is an absolutely fascinating study on this very subject that the Western world doesn't know about - unfortunately it has never been translated into English (it's on my 'must do someday' list!). A professor named Dr. Shoji Kondo spent his entire career in the early 1900's traveling around Japan trying to find the reason for the huge regional disparity in life expectancy. Some villages were boasting phenomenal life spans, others were kicking the bucket way too soon.He thought it must be environmental factors at play and set out to observe the lifestyles of ordinary villagers in different regions of Japan. But he struggled to find any meaningful correlation and (long and complicated book cut short) he ended up discovering that the secret was in what they were eating.Back then, diets in Japan were highly uniform within villages, but differed vastly between villages depending on factors such as geographical location, demographic makeup and overall levels of wealth. Some villages were well off and could afford to eat a lot of fish. Other villages consisted of farmers whose diets were very heavy on white rice and supplemented by lots of vegetables. The poorest villages could afford neither rice nor fish and had to rely heavily on foraged mountain vegetables, seaweed and soybeans. Mobility between villages back then was negligible, which makes for an ideal situation if you are a researcher trying to understand the effects of different diets on longevity.Guess what?It wasn't the fish eaters who lived the longest. In fact they were dropping off like flies.And it wasn't the rice eaters either. They had their issues too.It was the super poor people who were living the longest. The ones who ate zero fish, very moderate amounts of rice and foraged greens for nourishment. But among those very poor villages, the ones with the very best longevity stats were the exact ones who consumed the most soy. In fact they consumed such large amounts of soy that most modern people would never begin to match them.And it is not true that all Japanese soy is fermented, there is plenty of tofu and soy milk going on too. In fact it was believed that a good wife was a wife who could make good tofu. It is important to note though that they also eat a lot of seaweed and vegetables - the villagers who didn't get enough of those didn't fare as well. The triad of soy, seaweed and vegetables seemed to be the key.This study is very high profile in Japan - it is no underground conspiracy theory. Dr. Kondo's findings have guided several generations of healthy eating patterns in Japan and are a key reason why the Japanese associate soy with good health. And they should know a thing or two about health - they outrank every country in the world in the longevity stakes - and the situation would be even better if they would just stop throwing themselves in front of express trains in peak hour!For me, this is much more persuasive than what any dentist with a travel habit (which is what Western A. Price was), or any English teacher with a cooking habit (Sally Fallon has no scientific qualifications) might have to say on the matter.This is plain, common sense people.You can isolate a protein and test it on rats till the cows come home (sorry!), but your data will never be as robust as one conducted with whole foods, on humans, in real world conditions, on millions of people.One last thing and I'll shut up, I promise! Have you heard that claim that soy makes you infertile? Yes, well check out how many people live in Japan. Compare that to the size of the country. Chew on that for a while.Peace/ xQuick after-note:I hope the above doesn't come across as a broad reaching endorsement of any and all forms of soy in any and all amounts. I think it is quite significant that Dr Kondo's research stipulated consumption of both soy and seaweed - seaweed is known to have the opposite effect on the thyroid to soy, so it is possible that they were offsetting each other. Personally, seaweed is a huge part of my diet already, so for me whether seaweed is necessary or not is moot. Also, you wouldn't see me taking soy extracts outside of their whole food form, as this would feel to sit outside of the scope of tradition and may approach the lab rat conditions the anti-soy scientists are so enthusiastically talking about.Another after note - this one’s for those of you who need to see more science. I came across this video from Dr Greger today that summarizes some of the latest science on the issue: Who Shouldn’t Eat Soy? | NutritionFacts.orgDr Greger also has some interesting videos on the man boob issue that some raise with respect to soy. If you haven't heard this one, the argument accuses soy of making men look like, well, women. Science tells us however that it takes extremely large quantities of soy to cause this effect (I mean really, how many Asian men have you seen with man boobs!?). You know what does cause man boobs though? Beer. So if effeminate men are your key gripe in life, you're best off focusing your energies on having them avoid beer, which contains an ultra potent type of phytoestrogen that actually does inflate your boobies and does so a lot more efficiently than the isoflavones in soy. For more information on this, see the videos below.The Most Potent Phytoestrogen Is in BeerWhat Are the Effects of the Hops Phytoestrogen in Beer?.

Note: I'm not an academic, and to a large extent, I'm uninterested in academic approaches to (and interpretations of) art and literature. I bring this up, because I don't want to fool you into thinking that what follows is the sort of analysis you'd necessarily hear in a literature class. My "qualifications" are those of a lifelong reader, a theatre director who specializes in literary works, and a huge Barthleme fan. One more thing: I am not particularly interested in what artists have to say about their own works. I have no idea (nor do I care) what Barthleme may have said about his goals.For reference, here's the story: http://www.npr.org/programs/death/readings/stories/bart.htmlMany writers and other artists, particularly in the 20th Century, created works that were absurd, dream-like, and ambiguous. To some extent, this was a reaction to the depression, the two world wars, and the cold war. Many artists felt that the world had become absurd, like a bad dream.Movements such as surrealism and dada were also influenced by Freud's obsession with the subconscious and with dreams, and lots of artists purposefully tried to evoke "dream logic" rather than logic logic. Here's a link to my favorite book about the artistic swerve away from realism: The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, from Vienna 1900 to the Present eBook by Eric Kandel.Even though this absurdist/surreal movement had its original causes, it is now simply one of many "languages" artists speak. Contemporary surrealists don't necessarily consider Freud or the world wars. Many of them are simply attracted to the absurd, because it gives them certain modes of expressing, not available via realism.There are two main reasons (that I can think of) why artists create surreal works, and often both reasons are simultaneously involved in a specific work of art. And, regardless of the artist's reasons (which, again, don't much interest me), readers and viewers can receive works in these two ways:1. As an exploration of some aspect of the human condition, using absurd or surreal "language," because that allows for a more thorough or more evocative exploration, or because it allows the subject to be explored from a unique angle.It's easier to see how this works by considering sci-fi or fantasy. If I want to write about racism in a way that gives me certain freedoms to explore that I might not have if I wrote a realistic novel about the Civil Rights Movement, I might choose to tell a story, set on a planet populated by green people and blue people.An absurdist can do the same sort of thing. For instance, he could write a story that begins, "Each night, when Scarlett O'Hara had removed her skirts, petticoats, and corset, she unzipped her skin, starting at the back of her neck and pulling the clasp down to her toes, until she was able to step out of her porcelain skin and admire her negro body in the full-length mirror by her bed."This is similar to what Kafka did in his famous opening to "The Metamorphosis":One morning, when Gregor Samsa woke from troubled dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into a horrible vermin. He lay on his armour-like back, and if he lifted his head a little he could see his brown belly, slightly domed and divided by arches into stiff sections. The bedding was hardly able to cover it and seemed ready to slide off any moment. His many legs, pitifully thin compared with the size of the rest of him, waved about helplessly as he looked."What's happened to me?" he thought. It wasn't a dream. His room, a proper human room although a little too small, lay peacefully between its four familiar walls. A collection of textile samples lay spread out on the table - Samsa was a travelling salesman - and above it there hung a picture that he had recently cut out of an illustrated magazine and housed in a nice, gilded frame. It showed a lady fitted out with a fur hat and fur boa who sat upright, raising a heavy fur muff that covered the whole of her lower arm towards the viewer.If you want (or if you have no choice), you may read this as a metaphor. The story is, perhaps, exploring that all-too-human feeling of being insect-like: of feeling that everyone around you is disgusted by you or fails to notice you. By literalizing the metaphor, the story can explore this theme in a specific way. In addition, it's entertaining and funny (in a dark sort of way). Readers may also be able to relate to it as fantasy.I am not particularly interested in surreal and absurd works that are metaphors for political or social issues (I'm not a fan of "idea works" in general), though I do like it when artists use dream-like imagery to evoke specific feelings."The Lovers" -- MagrittePerhaps, for some, this evokes some sort of social issue or theme. For me, it evokes eroticism in a complex way: a way that is simultaneously sexy and scary.2. As a means to jar the brain into an altered state, somewhat like what (I hear) occurs when one take hallucinogenic drugs.Whereas, above, I've explored works that are, to some extent, pointless if they don't resolve themselves into some sort of clear moral or theme ("Oh, I see. The artist is exploring the horrors of racism."), another sort of pleasure comes from art that refuses to resolve itself, always remaining mysterious.The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead—his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.-- Albert EinsteinFor most of us, mysteries come in many flavors: there are scary mysteries, odd mysteries, transcendent mysteries, and baffling mysteries. For me, there are good mysteries and bad ones. Bad mysteries just confuse me. I watch the movie or read the book and feel like someone is trying to send me a message, but I have no idea what it is. I'm confused, and not in an interesting way. It's like someone has presented me with a math problem I have no idea how to solve.Good mysteries, for me, are mind-expanding. They jostle me into an active state. My mind can't resolve the work, but simply exploring it is fascinating (scary, joyful, evocative...). It's like staring up into a night sky, wondering if anyone is out there and never knowing."Mystery and Melancholy of a Street" -- de ChiricoAnd sometimes, simply by slamming two incongruous things together, an artist can help me notice them."Levitated Mass" -- MagritteWhen someone puts a candelabra on top of a grand piano, that’s one thing; but when someone puts a candelabra on a boulder, that’s something else. And I got to thinking, maybe people could see that candelabra a bit easier if it were on top of a boulder instead.-- Robert WilsonAll art involves risk, but surrealism and absurdism are particularly risky, because a mystery that excites one reader or viewer simply baffles and irritates another. For every person saying, "Wow!" There's another saying, "I don't get it!" For every person demanding, "Just tell me what it means!" there's another pleading, "Please don't tell me what it means!"-- An image from Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey."And there's a certain kind of person who simply can't relate to anything surreal, dreamlike, or absurd. He's a nuts-and-bolts sort of person who simply wants a picture of a cat to look like a cat, dammit!I once spent a frustrating day in an art museum with my friend, Bruce, who was just as frustrated as I was. As we walked around, he demanded, "What does that mean? ... What's that supposed to be? ... What's the point of that?" Though I loved the paintings, I couldn't help him, because, for me, the whole point was ambiguity. If I was able to tell him what a painting "meant," it was a painting I didn't like. All the ones I liked refused to resolve themselves into meanings.Marcus Geduld's answer to I love to see art that is visually appealing. Why do people love weird abstract patterns? What is the point? How do I start appreciating art that is not beautiful?Marcus Geduld's answer to Why do we like art?Marcus Geduld's answer to Why is modern art so ugly?All of that is background to help you understand how I read Barthleme's story: to me, he's evoking the feeling of school in a way that he couldn't do by telling a realistic story. In my mind, back when I was a kid, everything always died. I was surrounded by death or fears of death, and I felt so powerless to do anything about it. It really seemed as if the classroom pets were always dying, and I so wanted a grownup to step in and make sense of it. But the grownups were just as confused and scared as I was.Maybe you don't remember school that way. Maybe your childhood was different from mine. Maybe your memories of childhood are different from mine. If so, you may not be able to relate to the story. That's the problem with telling dream-like stories. If I say, "You know those dreams when you forgot to wear pants?" you're not going to be able to relate if you've never had such a dream.One of the things I love about the story, aside from its humor, is how Barthleme gradually ramps up the absurdity. It starts with animals dying, then exchange students, then parents ... then it becomes really crazy at the end. And yet it's all held together by a consistent voice: the puzzled, scared, frustrated teacher, who is trying to be honest with his students, in a confusing world, full of mortality.The story, for me, also evokes a kind of longing. I wish I'd had a teacher like that, one who tried his best to be truthful, even if all he could say was, "I'm scared and confused," but that never happened, because grownups never talked that way to children. Also, I couldn't because, as a child, I wasn't articulate enough to explain my concerns, unlike the absurdly articulate children in the story.I also really like the way the story links sex and death (and our standoffish relationship to both); how we use sex (or want to use it) as a way to escape from mortality. Death is always present, but we distract ourselves from it. There's always a new hamster, and, of course, it will die like all the other ones, but that's not what we think about the moment it walks through the door.

Manusmriti was described as an ancient text or document which form one of the 18 Dharmashastras. Its main application was to cause divisions of people in to varnas or castes. It assigns roles, responsibilities, duties to each person depending on his standing of varna or caste.But many claim this varnas or castes are later addition to vedic scriptures. Scholars say works like Manusmriti and also some vedic verses might have been supplemented, manipulated to accommodate four varnas. Also they justify initially it was not meant to be birth based.The ancient society was divided in to four groups of people called Bhramin, Kshatriyas Vaishyas and Shudras. The groups are called varnas.**The whole purpose of writing this answer**1) why and when shudras are denied education to learn vedas, smiritis, ritual ceremony and taking part in rituals. Is it true that Manusmriti discriminates Shudras? This is the question I try to tackle throughout this answer.2) Also, I would like to note some contradictions regarding the theory of Dr.Ambedkar. He claims Manusmriti was written by a Bhraman called Sumati Bhargava who may not exist during Sunga times and he was assumed as added discriminatory verses for shudras. If there is any proof Sumathi Bhargava existed during Sungas, readers can submit the evidence in the comments section.Bhargavas are the descendants of sage Bhrigu. Hence Sumati Bhargava might be also a descendant of sage Bhrigu.The seven sages in Hinduism were also like Superhumans or Mythological characters. Bhramin priests or any people may trace their origins as discendants of those sages. They are Gotras. The Sunga gotra was a creation myth by Ambedkar which does not exist. Bhargava may qualify as gotra and ancestor is sage Bhrigu.I would like to tell there are 18 to 20 smriti literatures. They all authored either by the manu, sages or their discendants or students.Manu is a son of Bhrama and seven sages are also sons of Bhrama. They are manasaputras.In Narada smriti it is mentioned Narada, Markendeya and Sumati Bhargava as sages. These are mythological characters.Ambedkar refers Sumati Bhargava as a Bhramin existed during Sunga empire which was nonsense and it would be false.If anyone can get a historical record of Sumathi Bhargava as a person existed during the reign of Pushyamitra Sunga. I am humble to take that knowledge and pardon me.Whatever Ambedkar tells are vedas, Upanishads and Rhyms of India taught in Kindergarten!I would also like to quote how fake studies are conducted by Americans, westerners to prove Ambedkars theory. People now also mixing and endogamy was not at all followed by all people except some Bhramin communities. Shudras are always mixed. How can you genetically study the whole 1.3 billion Indian population and say people stopped intercaste marriages about 1900 years ago. I would request readers not to give this as evidences. They will take genetic samples from people they want just to prove the theory. 1900 years ago do not belong to sunga empire as stated by Ambedkar. The link to the studies.Genetic studies confirm historical evidence on caste enforcement (Genetic studies confirm historical evidence on caste enforcement)As per wikipedia, the Shunga Empire was an ancient Indian dynasty from Magadha that controlled areas of the central and eastern Indian subcontinent from around 185 to 75 BCE. It comes roughly 2100 years ago. Sunga empire does not existed all over India , in north western parts and south India. They were called by different names as per empires, United India would not exist in ancient times. How the above studies can prove Intermingling of castes stopped? Why they are wasting time and resources in doing this meaningless research.So, let's begin and investigate more about Manusmriti, its purpose and does it have any author.Initially People use to choose varna as per their personal strengths, abilities. The ones standing of varna has nothing to do with his birth. They were free to join any profession like priests, warriors, agricultarists, traders, craftsmen. The varna signified only job of the person not his social status. Kings are called initially Rajanya not Kshatriyas. Kshatriyas are just army men.But it might be a gradual evolution of the culture, not any person doing manipulation in olden days to bring hierarchy. So the people made smritis in the name of sages and mythic beings like Manu. But the problem is, to arrive at an author so many false or inauthentic claims are made by people like Dr.Ambedkar.Manusmriti is a sanskrit document similar to vedic verses. The name smriti indicates that it would likely be composed by an author. It claims vedas as the source of knowledge. It is one of the eighteen religious texts discovered for Dharmashastras. It contains three sections namely origin of the world, sources of the law and law of forefold divisions or varnas.Smriti literally mean "that which is remembered," refers to a body of Hindu texts usually attributed to an author, traditionally written down like a text but constantly revised. But vedas are considered shruthis which are revealed orally and heard by seven sages which are fixed, cannot be revised or changed. Its believed that sages heard vedas while meditating, revealed to them by gods and they transmitted it orally.The Manusmriti was believed to be authored by Manu who was created by Bhrama and he was the son of lord Bhrama. He takes human form but he was of divine origin. The manu made a commentary to the sage Bhrigu about the origin of life, sources of law, varna Dharma divisions of society. Bhrigu interpreted it to his followers, students. Hence it was believed this teachings spread to all people later on.Manu may change for definite number of years as per manvantara, according to the puranic beliefs. Swayambu manu is self forming, may be related to the formation of immortal called Gods or Devas, their forms, appearance, idols, Sun, stars. They have no ancestors.In the 7th manvantara vaivasvata Manu a descendant from the sun is believed as the ancestor of humans of present.Vaivasvata Manu and the seven sages (saptarishis) along with the four Vedas are saved by Matsya avatar of Lord Vishnu from the great flood. Later on, Vishnu made Vaivasvata Manu as the ruler of this Manvantara. He is also the ruler of Matsya kingdom called by the name satyavratha and Shraddadeva.It is the commentary of that Swayambhu manu made to sages like Bhrigu which are assumed to be the contents of Manusmriti. Swayambu Manu is immortal, reflection of Bhrama or son of God Bhrama in human form. Whereas the present manu Vaivasvata is a descendant of sun but his contribution is saving life, sages and vedas from the flood as per Matsya purana where vishnu himself comes in the form of fish. His manvantara started after that event.The mythologies also make some confusion whether which manu is the author or the Manusmriti applicable to all Manvantaras. Many say Manu is different for different Manvantaras.There are 14 Manvantaras forming a kalpa, a day of Bhrama. A day of Bhrama is so large that it comes to nearly 4.2 billion years. So as per mythic records 7th manvantara is running now. No one knows what would be the future. If anyone survives in furture they will read about humans of today as puranas.To make clear about this concepts I am providing some alternate linksWhat is the story of Manu in Hindu mythology? (What is the story of Manu in Hindu mythology?)How can one know what happened in last Mahayuga? (How can one know what happened in last Mahayuga?)As per Matsya purana, story of Manu goes like this. What actually believed was Life and humanity existed before but totally wiped out due to flood and mostly few survived. They are manu along with seven sages. It was because god trusted Manu a righteous, truthful person with good conduct.When a fish came for help which was god Vishnu in disguise he tried to protect it by putting it in a vessel containing water. It keeps growing on bigger and he also builds a lake for it. But finally he dumps the fish in to an ocean as it becomes gaint fish. Later the fish warns about the destructive flood. He saves so many objects, also seven sages to make way for future humans by tieing a boat to the giant fish and moving it to a safe mountain.There is not many authentic religious texts of Hinduism because it was constantly kept changing by people of different times. But people say vedas are the ones which would remain unchanged and they are the truths revealed to sages. We ourselves if we have the capability, can amend, filter what we want in our religion. Such a freedom no other religion can provide.Most people among Hindus didn't rely what is written on religious books but we learn, follow our ancestors, parents where they teach most about our culture. This was supervised by priestly class called Bhramins (http://Bhramins.so). So, who are Bhramins? All are Bhramins, because Bhrama is the creator of all, Do anyone deny it? Later it is changed or corrupted to say Bhramins came from the mouth of a cosmic man purusha created by Bhrama.This is how the differences among people arises and god or scripture was made use to Justify some differences or divisions among people.But surely one of the problems is differences and divisions among people via caste wise and region wise (states).This is the modern evolution.No religious texts can unite Hindus but there are scriptures like Gita which carry the unity of thought to remove any discrepancies. Even lord Krishna's wisdom is respected, his attitude of deceiving not appreciated by many. Still people love him and worship him irrespective of caste. Many celebrate Janmashtmi, Gokulashtami. But no one celebrate the victory day of pandavas in Mahabharath. A message to humanity is war is destructive.But such an attempt was also made in olden days initially in Manusmriti as well before the popular kingdoms arise and it claims vedas are sources of law. We can't figure when it came, is it before buddishm allying with vedic culture or is it after the fall of Buddishm.Manusmriti also describes the obligations of the king in his kingdom. During the wars or war like situations king should refrain from harming ordinary citizens and he should negotiate first before waging wars. It has 1,034 verses, the largest portion talks on laws for and expected virtues of Brahmins, and 971 verses for Kshatriyas. The Manusmriti assigns more functions, duties, responsibilities to the Brahmins (priestly class) and the Kshatriyas (king, administration and warrior class).Gita is mostly descended from puranas. Western scholars use to separate vedic age and epic age. But their dating are just predictive.So many say the Hindu religious reformation by priest Adishankaracharya wiped the practices of Buddishm and led to Bhakthi movement. But it is surprising Buddishm existed till coming of islam and inscriptions of Bharhrut in Mp are studied to confirm till 10th to 12th century AD.But this philosophies mentioned above never helped because many among Hindus still believe castes are birth based, priests are separated from commoners and priests only can specialise in sanskrit knowledge. To create demand for priesthood the rituals, temples and festivals, religious rites and practices are finally Monetized in modern India. Manusmiriti never recommend Bhramin taking a fees to carry out rites, rituals, festivals. He should rely on people's gifts or Kings Patronage.Those who administer or rule in modern life have no connection with those ancient practices as we live in a federal republic form where states are united. We are tied to Buereacracy, Judiciary and Government. Manusmriti had no connection to modern social life apart from theology. The only problem is ancient scriptures were Vandalized by the activists without knowing exactly what they are made for.The primitive divisions of caste existed in ancient texts like Manusmriti and they are called varnas. Most ancient texts talk about varnas and Jatis which was referred by a European word called caste. Due to some political activists, Governments take Indian ancient texts as sources of India’s caste system. We all regard Indian culture is a continuation from the immemorial times.If there are informal divisions like castes among people, but no foreign travellers except in modern times gave account of any rigid caste system in ancient India.Some allegations are the texts are willingly supplemented to make harsh towards Shudras. This allegation is tackled by many scholars to show the texts are not discriminatory in actual practice. Please refer the link below.Manu Smriti and Shudras (Manu Smriti and Shudras)But still it is difficult to conclude it was a system made to discriminate or claim authority over others because, some other ancient texts say shudras can be studied and learned, once they do it they can acquire wisdom like Bhramin, loose the shudra status and to take part in rituals.The thread wearing ceremony or twice born concept for Bhramin, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are only mentioned in Dharmasutras like Manusmriti but they are not mentioned in vedas. However, Manusmriti claims it is derived from vedas. Hence I agree this would be a later addition. But it does not deny Upanayanam to shudras as per the verse below. A shudra can become Bhramin by a guru if guru conducts a thread wearing ceremony and initiates his learning.Manu Smriti 10.65 verse asserts that Brahmin can become Shudra and Shudra can become Brahmin. Similarly Kshtariyas and Vaishyas can also change their Varnas.There are descriptions of Jabala rishi in vedic period who was not considered as Bhramin.Some Upanishads, a commentary given to students by Gurus attest the presence of Shudra learners. This is with reference to sages like Yajnavalkya.But the qualification of being a Bhramin to do rituals and poojas is often doubted. There are so many considered as priests and sages affiliating as Shudra. Shudra was used to describe only lack of education. Anyone can gain education to change that status. The thread wearing formalities or initiating education by a guru through a ritual called Upanayanam was absent in vedic and upanishad literature.Varna Dharma and Dharmashastras are later additions. They are found only in smritis which were said to be authored by various sages who are mostly claim as discendants of earlier sages who composed vedas, Samhitas. Hence the claim of Manusmriti being taught by Manu to Bhrigu is disputed by scholars. Hence People like Ambedkar tried to assign authors for it, but the arrival of author's name is just an assumption. The facts are not historically supported.What I would like to say ritual purity was a later advancement in Bhramanism which was a universal religion to all once upon a time and status of the Bhramin was initially same with the other classes. There are instances Bhramin also carry out agriculture, cattle Breeding. There is no divisions existed among people.But due to growing civilization, people took different Jobs and priesthood would get separated.Often my interpretation of varna system is connected with gods.Bhramin - God Bhrama, the creatorKhsatriya- protector - God Shiva or RudraVaishya - Nourisher or food giver - God VishnuKshatriya can protect or destroy with both capabilities. There is a concept of Dharma also Dhamma ethical code as we see in Buddisht texts.This is related to vedic Ṛta Sanskrit ऋत ṛta "order, rule; truth".But later Bhramins pray to vishnu as a form of Bhrama through Vaishnavism. There is notion that God is one and we all same in vedic culture.The shudra is an inclusive concept as some Bhramins and Vaishyas gain expertise in rituals, education, trading and they concentrate less on agriculture, Cattle Breeding. Many regard Shudra also nourisher of food and closely related to the word “Pushan". Often Vaishyas included with shudra to describe agriculture profession.But the question is why and when shudras are denied education and taking part in rituals. This is the question I try to tackle throughout this answer. Also, I would like to note contradictions of Ambedkars theorizing Manusmriti as written by a Bhraman called Sumati Bhargavi who may not exist during Sunga times claiming he added discriminatory verses for shudras.Manusmriti was regarded as a corruption by many to elevate the status of Bhramins. A Bhramin priests respected status was also found in vedic culture along with other epics, Shastras.Also, there was a notion of fair skin, more respect for Bhramin priest during times of Buddha when he met a Bhramin priest called Assalayana. This suggests how the culture evolved.Traditionally, Shudras were peasants and artisans. The ancient texts designate the Shudra as a peasant. Shudras were described as the giver of grain and ancient texts describe a Shudra's mode of earning as being "by the sickle and ears of corn". The ancient precept, "Vedas are destroyer of agriculture and agriculture is destroyer of Vedas", is shown as one of the reasons as to why the Shudras were not allowed to learn Vedas. The fact that peasants were held as Shudras is also documented by Chinese traveller Xuanzang in the 7th century.The claim of adulteration, manipulation of Manusmriti by a Bhramin to increase his status as stated by Dr.Ambedkar casts some doubt. Because the social status of shudra and Bhramin was already set by the evolution of the culture. Other answers show Manusmriti adulteration happened in Sunga period during the Pushyamita sunga reign which may not be true. Because all this examples show before Sunga period. Please refer the link below.The Buddha Talks to a Brahmin Supremacist (The Buddha Talks to a Brahmin Supremacist)Also, Pushyamitra Sunga was not considered as Bhramin by many. For this I would like to quote again below link.What are the real reasons for the assassination of Brihadratha Maurya by Pushyamitra Shunga? (What are the real reasons for the assassination of Brihadratha Maurya by Pushyamitra Shunga?)What is the allegation? But due to increasing crimes, Bhramins enforced security measures for themselves by adding some verses againist shudras and their ethical status is elevated by the support of Royal kings like Pishyamitra sunga. Many assume this would have happened post Buddisht decline in India.The Rigveda, well older than any Buddisht culture attests the presence of varna system where it elevates the status of 3 varnas and says Bhramin coming from mouth of a cosmic man called purusha. This casts doubt how Manusmriti could be the source of corrupted birth based varna system as it's already present in start of vedic culture which is semi tribal, nomadic.For the resurgence of present day caste system, there are other factors contributing it including divide and rule perceived during British era. Most vedic texts came to light because modern people started putting it in to paper.It look like when Manusmriti was enforced upon people as a rule of law is not given by scholars. It is also a religious text obtaning hymns to various gods and goddesses such as Gayatri a form of goddess Saraswati.The problem here is what is the connection between the rigvedic purusha sukta and Manusmriti which imposes division of people in to varnas.Purushasukta states a sacrifice of primordial man called Purusha by devas whose organs such as head or mouth represent Bhramins, hands Kshatriya, Thighs as Vaishya and legs as Shudra.Vedas say god Bhrama the creator of Purusha and in turn purushas bodily sacrifice gave birth to humans of different Varnas who emerged from different parts of his body.Many believe purusha sukta of Rigveda is a later addition to Rigveda. We don't know how people lived before varna system, but their forms of worship, beliefs resemble a tribal lifestyle. The purusha sukta gives us a glimpse of birth based system because it glorifies Bhramin coming from mouth and assume his good karma is what made him to be born as Bhramin. This kind of beliefs of karma and rebirth later enforced on people for creating permanent divisions. Contrary to this some scholars say, Varnas are not all birth based systems when they are initially practiced.How this record of vedas which seems to be a manipulated or supplemented verse was Justified by intellectuals. Our land produced great religious Scientists like Vivekanada and also many modern scholars who have studied deeply vedic literature and puranic myths. They have a logic to prove this was not to be meant discriminatory. What they say all organs of the man's body is important like legs which will give you strength, motion. This doesn't mean Bhramins coming from mouth are superior. All have feet, hands, mouth and thighs. It means all are equal. This kind of arguments also provided.But still am not convinced, how shudra coming from leg or feet, even if he had any chance to learn and become like Bhramin. Because by birth he came from legs only, this cannot be changed, this was what made him a shudra. It is tied to his birth. He can upgrade to Bhramin on his next birth or Janma. Now this is the Question I need answer.But there is another concept called twice born in a life, where guru or a priest gives another birth after learning. This was called Dwij, which happens by teaching, initiation and certification from a guru in a ritual ceremony called Upanayanam. Shudra, if he can learn and become twice born by education can become Bhramin.This is how the system was Justified by intellectuals but difficult to put in practice. some texts say shudras can undergo twice born ritual equally. If all become priests who will do the other Job. There is no need of Shudra in the society, as three varnas can do their own tasks. Hence Shudra was claimed discriminatory role.However as per historian Ghurye, in many times occupations are not divided as per varnas. All four varnas also practiced agriculture. Many become traders or warriors in large numbers depending on economic opportunity and circumstantial necessities.The hereditary role of shudra is missing. Here also like to quote Aurobindo ghosh stated that shudra is a Guna or quality of every human being. Later it is mechanically slotted to labour and slavery. Many times we do our own tasks and do self labour. We work for others informally. This is quite different from Karl Marx view of labour in Industrialized setup. Here labour is not socialized but it is a peasant bonded labour or informal labour it was called whenever needed.Most olden texts reserve labour, arts, crafts, Masonry work, agriculture for shudras. But this is not exactly followed. Many shudras become princes, there is evidence to show that many of them were well to do. Some of them succeeded in marrying the daughters of royal families. Sumitra, one of the four wives of king Dasharatha, was a Shudra. Some of them even worked their way up to throne. The famous Chandragupta (Chandragupta I - Wikipedia) is traditionally known to be a Shudra.Hence all leftists including Ambedkar claim that Shudras were initially well but they are degraded later due to Bhramin rivalry. This may or may not be true.There was no evidence of Bhramin rivalry. No shudra King fought any war with Bhramin king. Both Kings Chandragupta Mourya and Dhanananda are not considered Kshatriyas but as shudras, they fought each other. The role of Chanakya was as an educator and trainer. Pushyamitra Sunga might not be a Bhramin as there is evidence of Sungas supporting Buddishm.Guptas didn't come to power by subduing Shudras or Shudra kings. Till 7th century Ad, Shudras are peasants as confirmed by Xuansang China traveller. No slavery was in practice as practiced in ancient Greece or Babylonia. Gupta period is secular which supported both Buddishm and orthodox Hinduism. In entire History of India the records of caste system are rare and they are not rigid. It might be even absent in rural setup as all four varnas equally concentrated on agriculture.We find mention of varna system or caste divisions extensively only in secondary works like Manusmriti which claim vedas as sources. The dating of this texts are not done properly with correct evidence.Ambedkar's assumptive approach of dating Manusmriti to Shunga period (2nd century bc) is not convincing. Because Shungas also supported Buddisht faith. Sumathi Bhargava, a Bhraman and a sage mentioned in Naradasmriti may not be existed during Shungas. No other historian recorded it apart from Ambedkar.How come Sumathi Bhargava alone has such powers to enforce punishments on shudras by adding verses to Manusmriti . Because Pushyamitra Sunga might be a follower of Buddishm he couldn't have anything againist Shudras. Why he would support a Bhraman Sumathi Bhargava to disrupt the social order and rival Shudras. Also, he was concerned with more on invaders like Greeks rather addressing internal problems.We find records he was a bhramin only in Buddisht puranic texts like Divyavadana, Mudrarakshasa claiming he persecuted Buddishts and favour only Bhramins who lost control on imposing their Faiths.But Archeological evidence say Pushyamitramight be Buddisht and also his successors are Buddishts like Agnimitra.The question is Sumathi Bhargava not mentioned in Manusmriti but mentioned in other works like Naradasmriti as one of the sages who recited it to his followers. What is the proof Sumathi Bhargava existed during the reign of Pushyamitra Sunga.Scholars tried to date both Manusmriti and Naradasmriti, came at a time during 100-200 BC. We do not know what is the logic behind it. Hence Ambedkar assuming Sumathi Bhargava existed during Sungas.Pushyamitra may not be a Bhramin, as his successors are Agnimitra, Devabhuti supported Buddishm. Pushyamitra resemble a Buddisht name . Ashokas daughter name Sangamitra. There was no Sunga Gotra and Sunga is not one among seven sages. There are no sect called Samavedic Bhramins , samaveda is one of the vedas.Bhrigu was one of the seven sages and author of Bhrigu samhita of vedas. In Manusmriti , Bhrigu discusses or chats with Manu, son of Bhrama.Bhargavas are descendants of sage Bhrigu. No other historian recorded about Sumathi Bhargava existed during Sungas apart from Ambedkar.But Narada smriti mentions Narada, Markandeya and Sumathi Bhargava as sages. What happens in Smritis, these sages are usually chating each other or telling to their students about the different subjects.There are 18 such smrithis and the authors name can't be found. Because all are written or commented to their students in the name of Sages who might have existed earier.For example Yajnavalkya smriti was dated around 6th century CE which was more than thousand years after sage Yajnavalkya existed. Someone made a commentary in the name of Yajnavalkya and taught it to their followers.All western scholars date some smrithis Manusmriti and Naradasmriti to be around 100-200 Bc. This is the problem. How they are dating it . Date of publication can't be written on those transcripts. They got it from Bhramin families who preserve texts from their forefathers at their places.The Sunga empire existed only in eastern India, but excerpts of smritis are obtained from all over Indian subcontinent.Both Manusmriti and Naradasmriti are essential law books of those times. They teach about Vyavaharapadas meaning Business agreements. Also, Varna Dharma. How to confirm this came during Sunga times. Sumathi Bhargava is also a sage discended from Bhrigu. The Bhrigu is said to author Manusmriti along with Manu.Here is the speculationManusmriti - Manu, Sage Bhrigu and his students chat each other.Narada smriti - Sages Narada, Markendeya, Sumathi Bhargava comment on different subjects of law at those times.Sumathi Bhargava is a discendant of Bhrigu but also considered as sage. How to confirm he existed in Sunga empire during Sunga times. Because Western scholars are dating this both texts to 100-200 BC. Hence Ambedkar is guessing both were composed on same period. After authoring Narada smriti, Ambedkar believes Sumathi Bhargava also added verses to Manusmriti which are discriminatory to shudras. What it shows, manu made those laws or verses but in reality some other person adding in the name of Manu.Why people has to accept Ambedkar views?Any one can manipulate smritis because they are not eternal. We can write our own. Why Sumathi Bhargava was claimed as author when his existence can't be proved by historical facts.It's an assumption a Bhramin existed during sunga empire. He was supported by Pushyamitra Sunga to manipulate Manusmriti texts and add verses which are discriminatory to women, Shudras.Manusmriti, vedic texts are oral traditions and you can't claim a date for it. This was where Ambedkar was at fault.Scholars should conduct extensive studies in order to verify whatever said by Dr.Ambedkar about Manusmriti is right or not. Many scholars like Patrick Olivelle researched about Manusmriti in modern days. We need to study those translations.The Varna system is seemingly early stages in the Vedas, later elaborated and amended in the Dharma Shastras.The word Manusmriti translates as “man memories" or “human memories". We get impression this has nothing to do with law, legal system or punishment. We have to clear that the actual name is Manu Dharmashastra.Smriti literally mean "that which is remembered," refers to a body of Hindu texts usually attributed to an author, traditionally written down like a text but constantly revised. But vedas are considered shruthis which are revealed orally and heard by those who seven sages which are fixed, cannot be revised or changed. They are of eternal origin. Its believed that sages heard vedas while meditating, revealed to them by gods and they transmitted it orally.Puranas claim Shruthis to be of divine origin but this was questioned by many scholars and also in olden days by Nastikas, sramanas, charvakas claiming this works are all just human creation. The people who questioned are non followers of vedic faith. At the time this movements came, sanskrit language was alien to many. Buddha adopted his teachings in pali, a layman language at the time.Hence, Shudra would have been created by vedic followers of faith for those who showed discontent towards and non believing of rites or rituals, those who can't accept the authority of vedas.But most vedic texts do not impose restrictions on shudras. This was what scholars say. So, there might be a later devolopment of twice born ritual certification for the 3 main varnas which was denied for shudras.Some records of Atharvaveda say shudras can learn and hear vedas. Also, they can undergo twice born ritual certification as per one verse from Manusmriti. Other records: Sukla Yajurveda 26.2 may also confirm this, but there is some ambiguity among scholars whether Shudras are restricted to learn Vedas.Hinduism was not based on penalty or punishment, many believe karma will take care of it. There is notion of liberation of soul for people adhering to Dharma.I assume the original Manusmriti might have come during vedic or Bhramana period. We have depictions of Manu in Bhramana records also. The original purpose of it may be for rituals. Hence they are religious texts as per scholar Romila Thapar.The oral grasping is given more significance than writing in case of vedas and smritis. But smritis were written down later.What script was used to pen the Vedas and Upanishads of Sanskrit? (What script was used to pen the Vedas and Upanishads of Sanskrit?).Why modern people consider these books like Manusmriti as law because it tells about “Dharma”, conduct of all four varnas especially Bhramins and Kshatriyas who formed the base of kingdoms. its English equivalent comes close to law. Adharma would mean againist any norm which was considered as Dharma.There are so many Hindu Holy books which instructs people about way of life, rituals not only Manusmriti. We too come across texts like Bhagwad Gita, puranas. Why Manusmriti was the target of leftists and Ambedkar?It was likely that Shudra kings and nobles abused Bhramins once upon a time. Later when Bhramins got support from Royal Monarchs like Pushyamitra Sunga they would have added some penal codes and verses to suppress Shudras. This assumption was made in most answers. This is what termed as manipulation in the name of Manu by Scholars like Ambedkar during the times of Shunga empire. But there are issues with these claims.The Pushyamitra sunga was belived to have come to power due to the persecution of Buddisht prince called Brihadrata. Many times this has been taken as a starting point because after persecuting Buddishts, Pushyamitra supported a Bhraman called Sumathi Bhargava to manipulate Manusmriti texts to add some verses which are discriminatory to the Shudras.However, we can't claim Pushyamitra Sunaga as a Bhramin because if you look at the Ashokas Daughter name called Sanghamitra it shares some similarities. Also successors of Pushyamitra are Agnimitra and Devabhuti who supported Buddishm. The names of the Bhramin look like Chanakya, Acharya, Sayana.However, historian Romila Thapar also considers Buddishts persecution claims to be exaggerations. Thapar writes that archaeological evidence casts doubt on the claims of Buddhist persecution by Pushyamitra. Support of the Buddhist faith by the Shungas at some point is suggested by an epigraph on the gateway of Bharhut (Bharhut - Wikipedia), which mentions its erection "during the supremacy of the Shungas”. Hence Pushyamitra supported Buddisht faith.Manusmriti is an antique work, it is not adultured by anyone from its original concept. But it would have been amended from time to time in different regions and periods. No one knows when this amends happened and which are added verses seem discriminatory, how varnas become hereditary. Because some verses can be interpreted in different ways as we see in the answer below.Initially we can suspect how a four varna divisions are neccasary when Manu, Bhrigu existed. The names of the supreme beings and sages are used to enforce some rulings. This is the case of Hindu texts and many times we ourselves think how the gods or sages would say things which are deemed harmful, discriminatory. However Atheists alike didn't believe our religious founders Manu, Bhrigu existed once upon a time. So I assume I am serving the readers who are atleast neutral believers of Hindu faith.What was assumed there are only three classes priests, kings and commoners. The commoners have no roles. Manusmriti talks more about priestly Bhramin duties and Kings obligations.Later this commoners become Vaishyas and later some will fall as Shudras. However, Vaishyas are followers of rites, rituals and specialise in trade, agriculture. But Shudras were not initially ill treated, they were peasants or farmers even after gupta period as confirmed by chinese traveller XuanZang in 7th century. Without Shudras, civilization can't survive because Kings, warriors and Bhramins live by taxing agriculture products of shudras. Shudras might have tied to feudal system. Shudras are important for fulfilling needs and supporting society in early phases. Later in Medieval and moghul times they are forced for bonded labour or slavery which become hereditary.But still we can make clear that Manusmriti doesn't prescribe birth based caste system. It talks about the conduct of the individuals belonging to four varnas. To rise to the status of Bhramins someone has to work for it, gain education and become twice born by certifying by a guru in a thread wearing ceremony. But the problem is this thread wearing privileges are denied to shudras. Hence, they find no chance on learning what Bhramin priests know.Even scholars say the practice of the thread wearing ceremony was not there in the vedic books, but its only described in secondary works, like Manusmriti. The concept of Dwij or twice born do not exist in vedas. I may be wrong. Here I have to question the scholars. But as I read this in wikipedia I am more convinced.Dvija - Wikipedia (Dvija - Wikipedia)In contrast, the Buddhist texts do not describe the Indian society as divided into the four varṇas. This was confirmed by many scholars. It only speaks about Gahapatis, called householders. The term Bhramin, Kshatriya was more used in Buddisht texts. The other 2 varnas rarely have a mention. Even times of Ashoka have no mention of Shudra. These casts doubt about the existence of shudra in vedic records because Rigveda mentions it in Purushasukta.Rigveda might not be supplemented or added with Purushasukta hymn during sunga or later times because of the language of the rigveda which was different from those times. Even Sanskrit would have changed and evolved due to works of people like panini. Anyone can identify if changes to Rigveda by adding purusha sukta hymn was made during sunga or later times. Sanskrit was not a state language those times.Take for example what is the difference between Shakespeare English and Modern English. The language of Rigveda is different from paninis sanskrit. Many languages would have evolved like prakrit to simplify oral communication.What is the difference between Vedic Sanskrit and classical Sanskrit? (What is the difference between Vedic Sanskrit and classical Sanskrit?)Please refer the link below about the opinion of scholars like Vivekananda.The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 6/Epistles - Second Series/VIII Sir (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 6/Epistles - Second Series/VIII Sir)Also, Shudras are not discriminated just for being shudra and Shudra is a supporting role in the society. Just because something there in the Manusmriti doesn't mean all were in practice. The works of Manusmriti provided in late 18th century by a Benagli Bhramin called Kulluka Bhatta is not considered authentic. This was what considered modern version. Scholars are unable to agree old Manusmriti being enforced as a legal system. It only tells about duties of varnas and how to take the matter of violations.I mean in any organization people may play different roles, making different rules become neccessary. There is a notion of discrimination towards Shudras. The same book cannot say different things. How can someone is discriminated if it says on one verse punishments are equal for all.I wish to reproduce one translated verse here. This was what believed true. Anything other than this might be not even called Manusmriti. The present caste system is the evolution of the culture in a wrong way and are made to claim superiority over others. This weakness of the system is what used by the colonial British to create rigid caste lines.Obviously the nature of violations, crimes would be different from different people. Hence, the king or a noble who work for king , was more responsible and has to be penalised more. How a shudra who is a commoner will be harassed more in this system.“Be it the father, mother, teacher, friend, wife, son or priest, one who conducts a crime is punishable by the ruler”“When an ordinary man would be fined one ‘Kārṣāpaṇa,’ the king should be fined one thousand; such is the established rule” It means King is more punishable than ordinary citizen.I also like to add some more translated verses which I got and also given links to its sources at the end.Manu Smriti 10.65 asserts that Brahmin can become Shudra and Shudra can become Brahmin. Similarly Kshtariyas and Vaishyas can also change their Varnas.Manu Smriti 9.335: If a Shudra (uneducated) serves the educated ones, is polite, devoid of ego and stays in respectful company of knowledgeable ones, he/ she is considered as having a noble birth and stature.Hence, many scholars like Aurobindo say about Shudra is a quality or gunas of all human beings. It is not birth based character. We can alter our personalities by education. That is what someone makes a Bhramin by getting educated. A guru is capable of making anyone Bhramin and conduct a thread wearing ceremony to make a person twice born.If Manusmriti is not corrupted what is it's original purpose. Obviously it concerns more about Kings, Buereacracy and its relation to priesthood. So commoners called Vaishyas and shudras are later brought in the texts to maintain the order and to design rules, conduct for them.The notion that caste system was not birth based initially is also doubted. Right from the start it is made to create permanent hereditary divisions as we saw in Rigvedic purusha Sukta. This looks contradictory. But reformers and scholars say these are all later additions even in Rigveda. They were practicing uncorrupted system, where anyone is free to choose varna according to their merits. This was confirmed by the existence of many sages who are called shudra initially. The status of the Bhramin was elevated later on by the evolution of rigid caste or varna system.Some professions and religious practices might become hereditary over time. Why Nehrus grandson and their Great grandsons have to become prime ministers in democratic setup. Such claim of hereditary roles still exist. It was not a surprise the age old varnas turned in to rigid caste system. But some decipher the meaning of varna is “Choice" “Color" “Cover”. The initial meaning says it's a choice not a rigid system.The author can't be women because Hindu religion is male supervised and women are kept away from rituals. Women are subject to the care of men. We come across rarely any woman sages in ancient literature. I assume ancient Indian society is a male dominated .Traditional Status of Women in Hinduism (Traditional Status of Women in Hinduism)Manusmriti was likely came in to effect when Hinduism was evolving with caste system. However there is growth of sramanism which was precursor of Buddishm and Jainism with some different ideas. They questioned the bhramanic priesthood. These are all having impact on using texts Manusmriti to use a system to contain non believers of ritualistic practices.However there is claim that Shudras were previously Buddishts who are under the rule of Ashoka. Ashoka as an emperor never forced Bhramins or any people to convert to Buddishm. Buddishm is not a religion those times and concept of forced conversion never exists those times. Bhagwan Buddha was belived as a Sramana who rejected Bhraminic culture and he want to educate all about how to attain salvation without rituals. But why Shudras worship Hindu demigods instead of Buddha. Some shudras worship goddess Durga, Kali, practice Shaivism. Many places are not under Ashokas rule. They are very diverse culture. But most vedic practices emerged from Northern India. Southern India is tribal covered with thick forests those times I guess.It is likely that Buddisht followers may be killed by invaders or migrated outside subcontinent to spread Buddishm, formation of Kushan empire which was powerful only in north western parts of Balkh patronized the spread of Buddhism.The emergence of birth based caste system is attributed to the decline of Buddhism. The problem - Birth based varna system look like existed before Buddishm also. How can Rigveda be modified to suit a birth based system in one of the hymns called Purushasukta exactly after the decline of Buddishm.Rigveda is a very antique work which has 1 of very old civilization of the dried Saraswati more than 4000 years old. Buddishm cannot go older to such an extent. Since Rigveda mentions the start of caste system, it is likely that followers of vedic faith migrated and come across people of different culture.Practioners of vedic faith are very fluent in Sanskrit. The word sanskrit itself says it is a processed language and may be derived from other sources.Hence, in 19th century Max muller started Aruan migration theories due to similarities of sanskrit with other Europe languages. We Indians, are not aware of any differences among us but caste system is promoted to say upper castes or varnas are Aryans and Indo Europeans who migrated towards Indus and later to Ganges, populated whole India including south. This is Quoted as a reason for the practice of endogamy Since Aryans do not mix with non Aryans due to differences in skin color.The Britishers who established a weak federal structure after winning battles sought to study the Indian culture in 19th century. They are called Orientalists. Whatever Manusmriti British people have got and published in those times was most likely from a Bengali Bhramin.This documents obtained from British with manipulations for the sake of convenience of assisting them in framing laws carries lot of bias. It may not belong to the intended original author of ancient times. Even today the laws pertaining to Hindu marriages have some influence from Manusmriti.Also, during British imperialism many reformers like Swami Vivekananda, Aurobindo Ghosh worked to bring unity, peace and Harmony among people.What the above reformers said was caste divisions are not mechanical system for slotting people into various social categories based on their birth in a certain family.Caste denotes specific traits of humans and all humans have qualities of Bhramin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. Of course one of the traits predominates more than other in a person. A person may have more bhramin traits that doesn't mean he is not good at other 3 qualities. Anyone can become Kshatriya, Bhramin ,Vaishya. Also, People who are good at art, physical skilled work and agricultural tasks can choose Shudra. So people can choose their varna according to their strengths and personal abilities.1. Brahmin = intelligentsia.2. Kshatriya = people involved in governance.3. Vaishya = Business and trade4. Shudra = labour, agricultureHowever, the study by British orientalists such as Max Muller, William Jones and also Rajaram Mohan Roy to promote Aryan invasion theory also impacted on resurgence of Caste system as a birth based ethnic racial system. Even though Rajaram Mohan Roy sought to reform Indian culture and looked to free them from ritualistic practices, Idol worship but his institution promoted the orientalist ideas of Aryan invasion. People like Rishley a Colonial officer promoted the caste system dividing people in to upper castes who represent aryans with fair skin and lower castes as non aryans. He claimed upper castes are Aryans who came outside from Indian subcontinent.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333166832_Brahmo_Samaj_as_an_Actor_in_the_Dissemination_of_Aryan_Invasion_Theory_AIT_in_India (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333166832_Brahmo_Samaj_as_an_Actor_in_the_Dissemination_of_Aryan_Invasion_Theory_AIT_in_India)What would have happened in olden days . There was assumed that both Bhramins and higher castes came in conflict with Shudra community in olden days. Even though evidences were not much, we did not saw or come across any rivalry like between upper varnas and shudras in olden days like we see in today's India. They have a Coordinated life in rural setup.The problem quoted in modern times. priestly class or Bhramins have their rigid practices of untouchability atleast during rites and rituals. Because the priests prefer purified items for carrying out rites, Homas. Well, this was what people from long olden times are fighting through and trying to reform. This has led to creation of so many castes and religions as many scholars, priests, reformers didn't agree with this practices. But it was survived till now.The question arises what Manusmriti, vedas prescribes regarding conduct of person during rites, rituals. We can't get this details because it's our common sense to keep ourselves pure. Is it only body, not mind. No one can check someone's mind is pure.I also quoted some problems in my earlier answer. People say I am making fun of Hindu religion. Many like me may question this because no one is equal to god how many times you take bath, purify yourself. I have a big question when Bhagwan Buddha travelled to teach, did he took bath every day? He was not just a human being, a god from heaven, he always remain pure. Is it like that?Arun Babbur's answer to What is your opinion about Manusmriti? (Arun Bobbur AR's answer to What is your opinion about Manusmriti?)But people in ancient times are totally different with a different social order. Only few practices are retained by Bhramin priests. This practices are also assumed to be refined, reformed by other Bhakti saints during medieval times.In medieval times, there are stories of Kanakadasa refused to enter temple and cited as an example for rigid caste system. People like Basavanna who was a patron of Bijjala, tried to reform the community through shivism to get out of rigid caste system. So these are all happened in Medieval era. There is no mention of rigid caste or varna system in Manusmriti.In medieval period, I assume Feudal landlords of villages are usually Vaishyas not Shudras but few like Gowdas, Reddys, Jats, Yadavs are upgraded to hold lands and cattle. The term shudra was not used extensively after medieval period. There is complex growth of caste system due to hereditary professions and leadership forms in village communities. But shudra was used like a embrassing term to designate a unfair behavior comparing to the behavior of a lower class.The birth based hierarchical system and endogamy may came later. It's the mixing of Varnas which was restricted with endogamy by texts like Manusmriti. But this was not practiced everywhere in all kingdoms and places because Manusmriti are not extensively used as authoritative texts. The only thing I like to assert not all castes would practice endogamy except few Bhramin communities. How you can prove mixing of people not happened about 2000 years ago assuming Manusmriti was authored at the same time.Yes it prescribes marriage instructions for both men and women. But didn't give reason how intermixing of varnas leads to violation of Dharma. Still a Bhramin may marry a Shudra women? Manusmriti allows it . This may lead to mixing. Women can choose among any 3 varnas except shudra. Wouldn't this lead to mixing? The exact reasons of endogamy nowadays are unknown to me. But the mixing of the shudra community who is not well recognized in the later varna system led to complex caste system in India.Many occupations might have forwarded by heredity and a hierarchy or leadership is inevitable. The Indian culture is rural based, the cities are less or non existent in most parts of the country in olden days. Even the small towns called patnas, Petes, Palyas, Nagars look small compared to today's metros.However, shudras can function as warriors in times of war and this is attested in Arthashastra.Manusmriti mention many tribes as shudras branding them as corrupted Kshatriyas due to the absence of Bhramin supervision. A Bhramin priest is always taken for trust by a Kshatriya king to rule and follow the moral conduct.These are many assumed stories but some are still in practice. But it is the gradual evolution of culture. There are many made up stories by scholars like Dr.Ambedkar about Broken tribes called Dalits. I didn't come across any verse making a shudra untouchable for ever. So modern transcripts of Manusmriti is not authentic as claimed by scholars.Some allegations- There was existence of degraded people called Shudras in medieval times and they are degraded due to some complex social conditions of claiming hierarchy. Also, Shudra women was also badly treated and made as dasis .This was the allegations. How can moral sages like Bhrigu, Manu would be responsible for this human behavior. They never taught this. We can confidently say the books which say all this mentioned in this para didn't qualify as Manusmriti.The only sought of things which are cited as discrimination in modern times are restricting entry in temples, distancing citing pollution, not touching, living away from them, not allowing in the living area.I will clarify later in the end about the myth of noun Dalit which was not present in ancient texts and how we got it in the Indian system.But how this will impact the economic prospect of shudras, Dalits and their devolopment. The issue is due to modern conditions of urbanisation where people need common supply of water, also may be food, shelter and electricity. It caused trouble when such things are denied citing pollution, contamination. This problem could happen in congested rural conditionHow varna system mentioned in Manusmriti composed in olden times which is different from today's caste system is held responsible for the above problem. Why it has to be Vandalized or burnt by activists.This is where the British mutilated the Indian social system and appointed only upper castes to Buereacracy, educated them only. Why? It's because they need to study Indian culture, Indian people who look very different from them. Upper castes especially Bhramins have knowledge of India's material culture and its past. To design any Hindu law codes British require those people from priestly class. So British utilized a Bengali Bhramin called Kulluka Bhatta to get manipulated verses of Manusmriti and imposed it on the people to create rigid caste lines.Later when stories of people like Dr.Ambedkar who underwent mistreatment were heard, British changed the sides. They started politicizing policies like equal rights, Marxism. But Ambedkar’s teacher was a Bhramin who taught him and supported him. Like Marxists, British would like to get people of lower castes to administration citing they are economically exploited by the upper castes.I would like to say Indias caste system is not at all a form of economic exploitation instead a system of cooperation, coordination. The notion of higher and lower castes did not exist in our ancient texts, it was not the source of modern discriminatory practices.But when ancient texts like Manusmriti are in force, during those times people led a tribal lifestyle but united in villages.But when was Manusmriti enforced legally? Scholars like Thapar have not accepted them as legal systems.Priestly class felt insecure about their lives as some shudra kings started ruling who oppressed Bhramin priests and there was fear of crimes. Different kingdoms or regions would have made different amendments to the text. That is why there are inconsistencies and claim of adulteration. The original one which is suited for more tolerance, cooperation among the varnas wasn't got by the scholars for study.Hence, Manusmriti is a theology, mythology and religious text. It shouldn't be made political issue.Shudra and Bhramin conflict mythsOne example of Shudra king was Dhanananda who brutally murdered Chanakyas father, a bhramin priest and also heavily taxed people to become wealthy. He was attacked by invaders to loot his wealthy kingdom. His minister emptied his treasure to stop the invaders and distributed it. Minister was Jailed by Dhanananda. This was questioned by Chanakyas father, but he was murdered by his army. Later king tried to form sangha to do charitable work as people are discontented with his rule.He wanted to appoint a Bhramin for that charity. chanakya applied for it and came for the conference to take the chair reserved for a Bhramin to lead the charity. When Dhanananda saw him sitting on that chair without asking, he questioned Chanakya. He replied I am the right person for this. But he abused him for his looks, snipped his hair from his head and told to go away. Thereafter chanakya challenged him to get him away from the throne. He trained a person called Chandragupta to capture Dhananandas Kingdom.Nanda empire was ruling in India roughly during 5th to 3rd century bc. His father ancestor Mahapadma nanda vanquished many kshatriyas including Kuru and Panchalas. Also, rumors spread about Kshatriya kings having affair with Shudra women. Kshatriyas kings use to practice polygamy. Due to this shudra princes born and attacked Kshatriyas, their own nephews for claiming power. This was the case with Mahapadma nanda. The shudras might be conflicted due to their violent behaviour toward Bhraminism.Also, Pushyamitra Sunga may be wrongly considered as Bhramin because his successors are Buddishts. Sungas supported Buddhism. Why he murdered Brihadrata , last Mauryan prince is a paradox. There are no historical records of Sumathi Bhargava, who was claimed as a Bhramin during Sungas. The claim of Manipulation of Manusmriti by Sumathi Bhargava to degrade Shudras is not authentic. Pushyamitra being a supporter of Buddisht faith may not supported Sumathi Bhargava, a Bhraman.But we may not be able to take mythologies as evidences for caste rivalries. The social conditions prevailing at the time are different. Why people like Ambedkar and leftists like to create mythological theories for castes. Why they would like to spread hatred like Bhramins rivaled the Shudras. Anyone may be Shudra who was not twice born and who didn't learn vedas, scriptures. It was true for many people in modern days.This assumption are made by scholars. But there is another group called shramanas who also opposed Bhraman practices and Buddha was one among them.What people like Ambedkar try to do. They create a link between Shramanas like Buddha, towards those Broken tribes called Dalits and Shudras who might be degraded later in medieval or moghul times. But texts like Manusmriti actually do not degrade anyone. It's more related to individual duties and conduct based on ones standing in the varna. It was not a system based on birth. It was the British who used some narrow thinking Bhramins to impose a hierarchical caste system. How we trust the authenticity of commentary of Kulluka Bhatta, a Bengali Bhramin.They think initial followers of Buddha are related to Shudras and Dalits nowadays. But is there any evidence for this. I give one example. A Fathers Mother whose sister's uncle has a brother in law who has son and that son may be related to the Father said initially. We can't deny they are not related. Of course we humans all are related in one or other way yet we separate on families.But nowadays because of rebellion from people like Ambedkar who founded Dalit activism, institutions like JNU are misused to spread false propaganda about Hindus and Hindu texts like Manusmriti as it encourages slavery, discrimination like what happened in South Afica. This is what makes us sad, how our religion become so much rigid and corrupted. The hindu religion is hunted by Ambedkar, western people and Turkic Moghuls in different times.I am quoting few examples of tolerance. There was a special case of the Priest Adishankara who reformed Bhakti cult came across a Chandela on the way when he is going towards river to finish his rites. He signaled Chandela to go away but later realized that Chandela is a form of God Shiva who came in disguise. He prayed him and accepted him as Guru. This was a myth and believed to be happened in 8th century.The stories of Lord Krishna being brought up in Dwarka as a cattle breeder are there to establish harmony and respect the job of cowherds.**Conclusions**Considering the above explanations today's caste system is not result of any ancient discriminatory practices. It was complicated due to modern kinds of identity and urbanisation process where few castes involved to claim authority over others.With partial knowledge of Indian culture some like Bhramins assume themselves as upper caste and later other castes fall with respect to their claim in hierarchy. There is practice of endogamy to avoid mixing of castes by Quoting the scriptures like Gita and Manusmriti.This behaviour made people like Dr. Ambedkar to think the caste system is discriminatory. He wishes separate rights, schemes for some communities who he considers as exploited, discriminated by the castes who identify themselves as upper.Ambedkar added the notion of Dalits who are broken tribes and they are made to live outside villages thinking they are offenders, not touchables . This practice was assumed to be made by the people who claim themselves as upper castes or savarnas.No books or religious texts say anyone is impure or not touchable. It all made up stories. I don't know why and how it came. Ambedkar taken advantage to lobby for this issues with the help of British. Initially all varnas are related to the conduct of the person not to his family history or ancestors.I want to deny any hierarchy, upper or lower caste as no Manusmriti, other religious texts describe it. India being a secular socialist should not entertain this concept. It all started due to British popularizing Bhramins initially to study Indian social system. Later Amdekar who was from Maharashtra experienced some mistreatment as people say. This made British to defame caste system as exploitary, discriminatory.Also, the Marxists like Namboodaripad, Tamilnadu Periyar made similar movements like Ambedkar about the caste discrimination issues. But so many are created myths.There are some flaws by the action of Governments.1. excluding most people in welfare schemes assuming they belong to upper castes. This needs to be considered. Who made upper and lower castes. Obviously It was British , Ambedkar and later it is Government.2. Reserving Jobs, seats in higher education only for those who have assumed to suffer in the past by caste system. The fact is due to few cases this conclusion some are suffered in the past was made.3. Due to the abuse of political power and leadership, caste system is used as a lobbying card to get some exclusive benefits from government. Its a manifesto of elections. This cannot be easily stopped. Many countries look to separate religion from politics but this will not happen here.Indigenous Indian varna system always classify people in to four groups or varnas only. The concept of shudra is an inclusive concept in olden varna system. It's always classify people in to four groups.This is how easily Indian caste system was mutilated by invaders like British to introduce 5th varna called outcastes. The concept of outcastes, Dalits, SC, ST do not exist in ancient literature. It was invented by Maharsi Dr.Ambedkar. Please refer the third link at the end of this answer. This has led to so many violence in India.The shudra community have mixed but the people of other three varnas rarely mix. Even though there are so many castes and sub castes among the 3 main varnas apart from shudra. It was due to growing population and every ancestor formed his own group. Ancient varna system is flexible and differ from any sought of claiming authority over other varnas. Now, due to British we have upper and lower castes, concepts of economic exploitation, discrimination which is also not part of ancient texts. Why ancient texts and our culture is undermined by our own people.Come across an interesting book on origins of caste and its issues. Below are the links.Manu Smriti and Punishment (Manu Smriti and Punishment)Dalits Of Hinduism - Book for Hindu Ekta (Dalits Of Hinduism - Book for Hindu Ekta)Panchama Varna was a British creation - PGurus (Panchama Varna was a British creation - PGurus)The issue I would like to Quote how an author's name can be found by referring to other book called Narada Smriti. Because it is written by Dr Ambedkar how it will become absolute truth. The author should disclose his name in the original work. The author of Manusmriti can't be Sumathi Bhargava and he didn't exist during Sungas.