The logical problem with the Hindu Vedas.

Eastern religions emphasize on the importance of harmony, teach people to be moral, and overall deal with trying to eradicate life's suffering. However, under this blanket of hope and peace, lies a hidden reservoir of logical inconsistencies, and in this essay, I'll try to bring one under some spotlight

Vedas are apurusheya (Of Divine Origin) and yet mention the Purushshukta (notion of humans being the body parts of an eternal being, which later gave birth to the caste system)

Vedas are considered the most profound pieces of literature in the hindu tradition (and rightfully so). However, in the Rigveda, lies a fundamental problem. It mentions the Purush shukta. The notion of the purushukta describing a metaphorical being and not a literal one is debatable, however what is not debatable, is the moral qualm that follows it. The notion of the Purushukta (as of right now) has made almost 300 million people the victims of caste-based discrimination in India, and while one could argue that: "The Purush shukta was misinterpreted by humans", the question that one must ask is: Why should we follow the instructions given in the vedas if the divine authority is not truly Omniscient? (Otherwise he/she should have seen the Purush shukta being misinterpreted and decided not to include it). What remains of the moral and metaphysical judgement of the divine authority that would deliberately include a notion which would negatively affect the lives of 300 million people? Is the divine authority that wrote the vedas (or gave the instructions to the early brahmins) truly good or benevolent, and if not, why should the instructions given in the vedas be followed?

The argument boils down to: If omniscient (or scient enough) and omnibenevolent (or benevolent enough)➡️ omnisciece includes the notion of omni-temporality ➡️ why include the Purush shukta, and if not omniscient, why should the instructions of the vedas be followed?

(If i were to analyze this more rigorously I'm sure I'd find more inconsistencies within this framework).