07-01-2006, 08:57 PM
Hi greetings to all.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There have always been Orthodox Hindus and Heterodox Hindus in India.
Both stemming from a common Vedic platform.
Orthodox Hinduism developed in the states of Kuru, Panchala, Kasi and Kosala, basically the "Madhyadesha" region.
The rest of the regions were Heterodox.
Only Orthodox Hindus have believed in the rigid caste system represented by Manu Smrti.
It appears the Orthodox Hindus in order to preserve their identity decided to take this route.
The Heterodox Hindus have always been open to absorbing new comers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...topic=914&st=30
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The intelligent king, Bhojaraj established the language of Sanskrit in three varnas - the brahmanas, kshatriyas and vaisyas - and for the shudras he established prakrita-bhasha, the ordinary language spoken by common men. After ruling his kingdom for 50 years, he went to the heavenly planet. The moral laws established by him were honored even by the demigods. The arya-varta, the pious land is situated between Vindhyacala and Himacala or the mountains known as Vindhya and Himalaya. The Aryans reside there, but varna-sankaras reside on the lower part of Vindhya. The musalman people were kept on the other side of the river Sindhu. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
{EDITED - No missionary propoganda here}
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Take the initiative to reform, or reap what our ancestors sowed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My ancestors have not sowed anything wrong. If your, let us know.
What Dravidnist have done to Brahmin community is not only pathetic but surprisingly they still blame Brahmins and have no regret and there is no shortage of their cheer leaders in current century.
After ethnic cleansing of Brahmins from Tamil Nadu, you are still blaming Brahmins.
Is this a battle of linguist superiority or something else?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In India during this period Hindu colleges (ghatikas) were associated with the temples, and gradually the social power of the Brahmins superseded Buddhists and Jains, though the latter survived in the west. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The worker caste of Sudras was divided into the clean and the untouchables, who were barred from the temples. There were a few domestic slaves and those sold to the temples. Brahmins were often given tax-free grants of land, and they were forbidden by caste laws to work in cultivation; thus the peasant Sudras provided the labor. The increasing power of the Brahmin landowners led to a decline of merchants and the Buddhists they often had supported.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
{EDITED - No missionary propoganda here}
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kuntiputra, there are reasons why the Brahmins were so disliked in Tamil Nadu.
Unlike in other parts of India, large numbers of Brahmins were landowners; they exploited the labourers.
During British rule they took to education first, and so entered professions and services in large numbers. That is ok, but once in administration and management they kept on giving jobs and educational facilities to their own castes. They formed cliques to keep non-Brahmins out. That made other castes resent them.
Because of their tactics, in British India they enjoyed enormous political power. With democracy, this equation changed.
In 18th and 19th century, untouchability was more severe here. Dalits could be beaten if their shadow fell on a Brahmin; and until Rani (?) changed the laws, Dalits could wear only the barest minimum of clothing, because the way you show respect to a superior was to bare a portion of your body, and everybody was superior to them.
Dalit dislike is easy to understand. But the first three reasons were why the Sudras were so much against them.
You will notice that in other states of South India such throwing out of Brahmins did not happen.
Of course now the dalits (at least those who made it) are not abused. And since dalits are human beings, many take advantage of laws to abuse caste-Hindus over property disputes and so on.
I am not saying that dalit raj is the answer; I am only saying that poorer dalits do suffer from a bias which Brahmins in other states do not suffer from.
_________<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->________
{EDITED - No missionary propoganda here}
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He said, he came from a low caste who were nearly untouchable. Their women were not allowed to wear anything above navel and below the knee. They were<b> toddy (Alcoholic) tappers </b>and were therefore considered unclean. They suffered immensely at the hands of caste hindus. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
{EDITED - No missionary propoganda here}
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Marco Polo on his visit to south India about 1293 noted that climate and ignorant treatment did not allow horses to thrive there. He admired Kakatiya queen Rudramba, who ruled for nearly forty years. He noted the Hindus' strict enforcement of justice against criminals and<b> abstention from wine</b>, but he was surprised they did not consider any form of sexual indulgence a sin.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
{EDITED - No missionary propoganda here}
I have had Brahmin friends.I bear no ill will towards them but I fear what might be the situation if they get back absolute power.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There have always been Orthodox Hindus and Heterodox Hindus in India.
Both stemming from a common Vedic platform.
Orthodox Hinduism developed in the states of Kuru, Panchala, Kasi and Kosala, basically the "Madhyadesha" region.
The rest of the regions were Heterodox.
Only Orthodox Hindus have believed in the rigid caste system represented by Manu Smrti.
It appears the Orthodox Hindus in order to preserve their identity decided to take this route.
The Heterodox Hindus have always been open to absorbing new comers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...topic=914&st=30
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The intelligent king, Bhojaraj established the language of Sanskrit in three varnas - the brahmanas, kshatriyas and vaisyas - and for the shudras he established prakrita-bhasha, the ordinary language spoken by common men. After ruling his kingdom for 50 years, he went to the heavenly planet. The moral laws established by him were honored even by the demigods. The arya-varta, the pious land is situated between Vindhyacala and Himacala or the mountains known as Vindhya and Himalaya. The Aryans reside there, but varna-sankaras reside on the lower part of Vindhya. The musalman people were kept on the other side of the river Sindhu. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
{EDITED - No missionary propoganda here}
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Take the initiative to reform, or reap what our ancestors sowed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My ancestors have not sowed anything wrong. If your, let us know.
What Dravidnist have done to Brahmin community is not only pathetic but surprisingly they still blame Brahmins and have no regret and there is no shortage of their cheer leaders in current century.
After ethnic cleansing of Brahmins from Tamil Nadu, you are still blaming Brahmins.
Is this a battle of linguist superiority or something else?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In India during this period Hindu colleges (ghatikas) were associated with the temples, and gradually the social power of the Brahmins superseded Buddhists and Jains, though the latter survived in the west. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The worker caste of Sudras was divided into the clean and the untouchables, who were barred from the temples. There were a few domestic slaves and those sold to the temples. Brahmins were often given tax-free grants of land, and they were forbidden by caste laws to work in cultivation; thus the peasant Sudras provided the labor. The increasing power of the Brahmin landowners led to a decline of merchants and the Buddhists they often had supported.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
{EDITED - No missionary propoganda here}
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kuntiputra, there are reasons why the Brahmins were so disliked in Tamil Nadu.
Unlike in other parts of India, large numbers of Brahmins were landowners; they exploited the labourers.
During British rule they took to education first, and so entered professions and services in large numbers. That is ok, but once in administration and management they kept on giving jobs and educational facilities to their own castes. They formed cliques to keep non-Brahmins out. That made other castes resent them.
Because of their tactics, in British India they enjoyed enormous political power. With democracy, this equation changed.
In 18th and 19th century, untouchability was more severe here. Dalits could be beaten if their shadow fell on a Brahmin; and until Rani (?) changed the laws, Dalits could wear only the barest minimum of clothing, because the way you show respect to a superior was to bare a portion of your body, and everybody was superior to them.
Dalit dislike is easy to understand. But the first three reasons were why the Sudras were so much against them.
You will notice that in other states of South India such throwing out of Brahmins did not happen.
Of course now the dalits (at least those who made it) are not abused. And since dalits are human beings, many take advantage of laws to abuse caste-Hindus over property disputes and so on.
I am not saying that dalit raj is the answer; I am only saying that poorer dalits do suffer from a bias which Brahmins in other states do not suffer from.
_________<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->________
{EDITED - No missionary propoganda here}
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He said, he came from a low caste who were nearly untouchable. Their women were not allowed to wear anything above navel and below the knee. They were<b> toddy (Alcoholic) tappers </b>and were therefore considered unclean. They suffered immensely at the hands of caste hindus. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
{EDITED - No missionary propoganda here}
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Marco Polo on his visit to south India about 1293 noted that climate and ignorant treatment did not allow horses to thrive there. He admired Kakatiya queen Rudramba, who ruled for nearly forty years. He noted the Hindus' strict enforcement of justice against criminals and<b> abstention from wine</b>, but he was surprised they did not consider any form of sexual indulgence a sin.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
{EDITED - No missionary propoganda here}
I have had Brahmin friends.I bear no ill will towards them but I fear what might be the situation if they get back absolute power.