Post 118:
Good link. Especially insightful was SRK noting the biblical logic in the Congressi pseudo-brahmin's insistence that today's reverse discrimination was deserved (in spite of it being meted out to generations that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything that might have gone before):<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Divine Justice? Of the Abrahamic kind!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And then quoting the relevant passages from Exodus.
Who are those authors, Benjamin and SRK, by the way?
"Ritual purity" when it comes to dining indicates that vegetarians didn't eat food where the cooking utensils for preparing vegetarian food were the same as where meat had been cooked.
And similarly, that's why Jains don't eat with non-vegetarian people either and even continue this rule when living outside India.
My Jain friend's parents who had come to visit, after checking I was vegetarian, also checked that the meal prepared did not include garlic and onion (traditional Brahmanas also follow this rule). My friend, being of a later generation, has no problem with these items.
(Stricter food-rules always take precedence. Vegans double-check anything I offer them and at least 2 have vocally admitted they will never marry non-vegans.)
Jains are also very strict about intermarriage: when my Jain friend married a Hindu who was not born in a brahmana family, all hell broke lose with the former's parents. They have to marry Jains, but accept Brahmana Hindus as a secondary alternative in some instances.
I do not see this as discrimination, I felt they merely feared the loss of their vegetarian tradition and perhaps other religio-cultural aspects unique to Jainism (or even a religious upbringing, which they appeared to have anticipated of a brahmana spouse).
Early Buddhism in India (and Sri Lanka too - and even today there is still the Sinhala SC community called something like 'Rodhi') does appear to have been strict in practise. Although Buddhist sages and philosophers (like our own Hindu ones), had condemned differences due to birth and affirmed equality of all, in practise things tended to be as they had always been. Thus most Buddhist lay people married only within the same birth community and even subcommunity.
People often tend to marry others of the same lifestyle and community, because they are familiar with the same, know what to expect and don't need to change or adjust much.
Amongst Sikhs in Punjab also, according to news articles I've read, they have what the reports referred to as 'castes' and intermarriage generally takes place between people of the same birth-communities.
To imagine this is uniquely a Hindu phenomenon is not true. It is an Indic phenomenon. Hinduism merely has the largest number of adherents of all the Dharmic religions in India, which makes it more apparent. As more people of different communities meet, associate and learn good things from each other, intermarriages will take place more frequently than it does now. I can't see that this will become the rule (it still isn't even in Japan, which had <i>far</i> more 'castes' than us and some <i>really</i> extreme caste rules) as language, geography and customs will continue to have some influence.
On the other hand, why do Muslims and Christians still hold to caste and show horrible signs of caste discrimination all the while proclaiming they are egalitarian and caste-free? There is no mention of the various Varna positions in their scriptures, like there are in the Dharmic traditions. Yet castes exist in Indian ChristoIslamism (and Pakistani Islam!), and are <i>really</i> defined by birth. Meanwhile ChristoIslamism does not have any scriptures which denounce that Varna is birth-based and deny that one Varna is better than another, whereas our religious traditions and scriptures do so constantly.
From the Benjamin-SRK article:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No orthodox Brahmin, however poor, will dine with any non-Brahmin. Even while performing rituals for a non-Brahmin client, the Brahmin priest(s) is (are) fed first and sent off, while the rest of the group takes food with its own kind later.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Although they tend to be strict generally, this is not always true, though. My grandmother sometimes used to cook and feed all the children who came to learn from my grandfather (at those times when there were vegetables in abundance in the garden). When the children were filled (including my father and his siblings), my grandparents would eat. But this had to do with the importance of children (being fed first) over adults.
Good link. Especially insightful was SRK noting the biblical logic in the Congressi pseudo-brahmin's insistence that today's reverse discrimination was deserved (in spite of it being meted out to generations that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything that might have gone before):<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Divine Justice? Of the Abrahamic kind!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And then quoting the relevant passages from Exodus.
Who are those authors, Benjamin and SRK, by the way?
"Ritual purity" when it comes to dining indicates that vegetarians didn't eat food where the cooking utensils for preparing vegetarian food were the same as where meat had been cooked.
And similarly, that's why Jains don't eat with non-vegetarian people either and even continue this rule when living outside India.
My Jain friend's parents who had come to visit, after checking I was vegetarian, also checked that the meal prepared did not include garlic and onion (traditional Brahmanas also follow this rule). My friend, being of a later generation, has no problem with these items.
(Stricter food-rules always take precedence. Vegans double-check anything I offer them and at least 2 have vocally admitted they will never marry non-vegans.)
Jains are also very strict about intermarriage: when my Jain friend married a Hindu who was not born in a brahmana family, all hell broke lose with the former's parents. They have to marry Jains, but accept Brahmana Hindus as a secondary alternative in some instances.
I do not see this as discrimination, I felt they merely feared the loss of their vegetarian tradition and perhaps other religio-cultural aspects unique to Jainism (or even a religious upbringing, which they appeared to have anticipated of a brahmana spouse).
Early Buddhism in India (and Sri Lanka too - and even today there is still the Sinhala SC community called something like 'Rodhi') does appear to have been strict in practise. Although Buddhist sages and philosophers (like our own Hindu ones), had condemned differences due to birth and affirmed equality of all, in practise things tended to be as they had always been. Thus most Buddhist lay people married only within the same birth community and even subcommunity.
People often tend to marry others of the same lifestyle and community, because they are familiar with the same, know what to expect and don't need to change or adjust much.
Amongst Sikhs in Punjab also, according to news articles I've read, they have what the reports referred to as 'castes' and intermarriage generally takes place between people of the same birth-communities.
To imagine this is uniquely a Hindu phenomenon is not true. It is an Indic phenomenon. Hinduism merely has the largest number of adherents of all the Dharmic religions in India, which makes it more apparent. As more people of different communities meet, associate and learn good things from each other, intermarriages will take place more frequently than it does now. I can't see that this will become the rule (it still isn't even in Japan, which had <i>far</i> more 'castes' than us and some <i>really</i> extreme caste rules) as language, geography and customs will continue to have some influence.
On the other hand, why do Muslims and Christians still hold to caste and show horrible signs of caste discrimination all the while proclaiming they are egalitarian and caste-free? There is no mention of the various Varna positions in their scriptures, like there are in the Dharmic traditions. Yet castes exist in Indian ChristoIslamism (and Pakistani Islam!), and are <i>really</i> defined by birth. Meanwhile ChristoIslamism does not have any scriptures which denounce that Varna is birth-based and deny that one Varna is better than another, whereas our religious traditions and scriptures do so constantly.
From the Benjamin-SRK article:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No orthodox Brahmin, however poor, will dine with any non-Brahmin. Even while performing rituals for a non-Brahmin client, the Brahmin priest(s) is (are) fed first and sent off, while the rest of the group takes food with its own kind later.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Although they tend to be strict generally, this is not always true, though. My grandmother sometimes used to cook and feed all the children who came to learn from my grandfather (at those times when there were vegetables in abundance in the garden). When the children were filled (including my father and his siblings), my grandparents would eat. But this had to do with the importance of children (being fed first) over adults.