• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Bhagavata Purana Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Only Vaidika Madham shows the path for benifit of all beings. The three famous enquiries on Jeeva,Jagat,Ishvara is found here and ONLY here, Vaidika Madham is the only madham giving effective guide to all purushartas. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]To pray to GOD is different, to understand the order / HIM and effectively pray is different. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even buddhists do homams and yangyas as found in vaidika madham.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]So in a way , what you said is true. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif].....................[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Mlechha meaning cultures not exposed or devoid of Vaidika madham. Wherever in the land all the 4 purushartas of a jeevas are well attended – that land is called Arya bhumi. TN in one time is Arya bhumi. When that is not so – the land is called Mlechha Bhumi. Is india arya bhumi now? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now with the advent of Kali Yuga – world is getting melchified. In TN if you have the sacred thread you are ridiculed and scorned. People, bhaktas are afraid to even wear Vibuthi – the culture is totally changed. How can a brahmin live there? So in times of danger , when there is no protector of dharma – dharma sastra expectations are bare minimum. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]............................[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even picking leaves from plants like tulsi , there are many restriction in DS – who would believe your words that to proove one's innocence one has to undergo punishment, wrote the DS. I concur you didn't check properly or your mis-precieved or you are quoting out of the context.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I've backpacked to Bihar,UP,Nepal and went to most of the places in TN – covered 25% of landmass of India including the villages – I've travelled took food in all kinds of eateries – I've never seen any 2 tumbler system. Honestly I don't know what it is about.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It could be something simple like one of the customs of keeping seperate vessels for puja and rest. It may be something like a person want to keep his things private and not mixed up with other. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]During Pooja time , as kids we are not allowed to touch our father or grandfather , afterwards also in our culture touch is shunned. During Shrardam time it is observed very severly. Does that mean our parents loved us less ? No not at all. They being followers , they simply observed what is taught to them. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You have said correctly , this issue is overblown.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]...............................................[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]By me having a view , very different from you – you cannot say I'm closed minded and end the discussion abruptly. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Having different view is the cause for further discussion, for similar views there is no discussion needed – only Jalras are needed. [/FONT]

Regards
 
MM

>>[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Having different view is the cause for further discussion, for similar views there is no discussion needed – only Jalras are needed.<<

I am doing Jing Chak for this comment.I likey....better i start a new thread..

sb
[/FONT]
 
oops - i got it. frankly I didn't check before - but now i saw it.

see they guys are reluctunt to clean the saliva of dalits, if you ask me i won't do it for any other beings other than my immediate family. even if i do - it is with a sense of resignment - for any group there is what is called acceptance circle. it is there in all cultures and countries.

in my family , we are trained to clean our own vessels like food plates, cheepi kudika koodathu etc.. it is all founded in grooming best hygenic principles what?

it is for want of money , the poor people ended up doing this act of cleaning others used vessels and not out of any prema.

anyway a solution is found to use disposable cup ...

Even without Jathis , this mentality is found in many countries and cultures. rich countries have found a solution in the form of dish-washers.

my question to you - dalits can open a tea shop and can say it is for dalit only what?
"mathiythar thalai vasal mithikkathe" simple.

is this a very big issue to trash the scriptures. anyway how it got connected with the scriptures?. Scriptures theme is to be self-reliant - "don't bend for others nor don't make others bend for you". Infact it is the QED of whole dharma shastra

this is like making a mountain out of mole hill.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sb !

your quote on Bhagavat Geeta is timely, in fact I was searching for this sloka last time.

Nacchi - hope you see the pertinency of the shloka.

Regards
 
>>Even without Jathis , this mentality is found in many countries and cultures. rich countries have found a solution in the form of dish-washers.<<

Even washing in dish-washers,men & women take turns.So,much so,people prefer eating out.Therefore,Only dish no washers.Kool thinking.But now,with meltdown...with no jobs..biz is dull.Practically, Shambho Mahadeva Deva,Shiva Shambho Maha DEvase Shambho....

sb
 
I am shocked. Here we have two educated Brahmins justifying the inhuman two tumbler practice. Do they not know? Or they pretend not to know.

And quoting Bhagavad Gita to justify the system which was responsible for this.

We are always saying that Brahmins never committed atrocities against Dalits. Only other castes did it. But the Brahmins provided the religious sanction/approval for the atrocities. We were accessories to the heinous deeds committed in the name of the caste system. We can not do anything about what happened in the past. But are we going to continue the role of an accessory by giving these deeds a religious sanction/approval?.

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.
Click to expand...
I would like the members of this forum and the community to think. Are we not humans first and then only Brahmins? If crimes are committed against humanity in the name of the caste system, are we not becoming an accessory by providing religious justification for the system.

Service to Humanity is service to God said Swami Vivekananda.
 
Last edited:
Shri Nacchi, what do you think could be the reason(s) for the two tumbler system?

I do not think that it is only the varna classification...

There is a lot of "cleanliness aspect" (a simpler version of acharam) involved in that... maybe that is the root cause...

Do we not eat outside? - which one would you prefer - a shabby and a dirty place with unkempt waiters to serve you food or a place with cleanliness and hygiene all around?

In a clean place, nobody is bothered to ask whether it is a dalit or otherwise...

I do not eat food by those who cook non-veg in their house... I was very staunch in that... but when I went to three star or other hotels (by way of profession), I take only veg food... this I do for a particular reason in a particular place... which cannot then be generalized to impress upon me that I should never refuse to eat food from where nong-veg is cooked... I agree that I have compromised, but can that be extrapolated?

That cannot be inferred to mean that I am committing an atrocity, right?

Malgova is right... some people have their preferences... why should we force them? How do we ascertain that the other person is genuine? Better to start a dalit shop which entertains only dalits... simple.

By saying this, I do not undermine any class of people... it is just the way things are...

Staunch Iyengars who have undergone Samashraman do not eat outside (even in an Iyergar's house outside their own)... can it be taken to mean that the others are oppressed?

But there was oppression, agreed... but not everyone is an oppressor... Freedom does not give the other the right to put his hand in my pocket... It is the right to practice what one chooses without disturbing the other...

Dear Shriman, we are looking through the eyes of oppression and that is why we see oppression all around...

Bura jo dheken main chala, bura na miliya koi
Jab mann khoja apna, tho mujsa bura na koi...
 
Last edited:
Everyone in Tamil Nadu knows that the two tumbler system is because of the practice of Untouchability. The very same community used to prevent the Dalits from drawing water from the common well earlier. That continues in some villages even now.

The words Acharam and Cleanliness has been used by the Brahmins in the past to justify Untouchability.

Most of the Tamil Brahmins have come out against Untouchability and come out openly against that. They have actively canvassed against it even when the British were ruling India. In this the posters in this forum are not representative of the Brahmin Community.
 
>>The words Acharam and Cleanliness has been used by the Brahmins in the past to justify Untouchability. <<

I went one step more,saying,because of their bhakthi,pooja,vairagyam...etc one did get extra-ordinary powers.Therefore to protect people from getting disturbed by touching them,acharyals,continue un-touchability.

Today,CM & PM, President or VP or Sec of State,also continue untouchability when it suits them saying it as security.Terrorist might kill them.Its the seat or position,which gives them vichitra buddhi.Thats where Ammachi is a clear winner.

sb
 
nachi, sesh, sb, happy,

i will try to present my views on so many interrelated topics, here and in other threads.

nachi, to start off, i will address your query re social progressiveness and religious conservatism. to initialize, i wish to say, that i am with on all your social views.

having said the above, i have found that labels may mean different things to different people. please permit me, to address your query, at an issue level. perhaps we can then extrapolate, to what it means vis a vis, conservative or progressive.

by social progressiveness, if it means, not practising discrimination through castes, considering dalits as of our own faith, eschewing the two tumbler system, i think i am for it.

then comes the issue of quotas in educational institutions. the stated aim is to get representation to other folks within the hindu community. which is in direct conflict with our own goals, and the single skillset that we have inherited ie pursuit of knowledge as a means to livelihood.

would it be progressive to support this purported egalitarian moveof educational quotas? or would it be prudent to go for the status quo, in the narrowest of terms of looking after the tamil brahmin interests? i think it comes down to personal preferences.

religious conservatism - would it mean the mastery of the vedas and the puranas, to seek the wisdom of the ancients, and find a solution to current day living? would it means seeking directions and living according to the strictures of mutts like kanchi?

i am not so sure, in many an instances, where religion and practice can be compartmentalized as distinct, particularly in a brahmin household. there are so much interwoven, i think.

is caste religion? or practice? two tumblers, is a practice, which is a derivative of religion.

all in all, i am sure, i know what i like and what i don't like.

i don't like casteism, the 'othi pO' attitudes emanating from our supposed 'purity and ritual cleanliness', the shaving of widows, the hypocracy of the mutts, and particularly the coterie of ex executives who appear to hover around the managing of these institutions.

i am very uncomfortable with the way we carry out our rituals.

let us take the three key life defining functions:

birth: when the first born arrives, there is atleast in my family, the usual hullaballoo and the functions that go along with it. nothing happens when the other children follow. not sure, whether it is religious or social that we focus here. the first born gets the benefit of the homams and the the ones that follow have nothing to their benefit.

marriage: it has become a f(3c) ie a function of cash, convenience and comfort. any of us here can translate and relate to the 3Cs to varying levels of comfort (or discomfort). nowadays these are also coldly calculated formulaes, intended to maximize the perceived opportunities of the couple, through synergies produced through a common secular profession (!)

death: this is where we appear to seek elaboration, for after all, this is the ultimate unknown journey. i have had to be the primary participant of death ceremonies since early teenhood (my sonless maternal grandparents) and even then, in my childhood wonderment, i could only realize the levels of compromise and duplicity practised by all the participants. i have written some of my experiences elsewhere in this forum.

how much of these above rituals are pure religion? our concept of ritual purity, conditions our minds,i think, to wallow in the deepest of filth that is current day ganges, and yet claim to have purified our soul. it is but a fact, that kooja of gangajalam, indeed putrify, in a few days, producing an unexplained dismay among the recepients, who have been storing it for special purifying occassions. do we need all this to reinforce our faith? or is it practice?

personally, i find it more satisfying, to give vaazhakkai/rice as dhaanam, than those donations of heifers or ancient foods, involving the chavundi brahmins, for whom we have nothing but contempt otherwise, and yet whom we need in our deepest moment of anguish. personally, i categorize, our treatment of chavundis, as our biggest existing shame. no amount of whitewashing would be acceptable to me.

i also wish to say something about 'separate but equal' sentiments expressed elsewhere. it has something to do with, 'if you don't like my customs, go set up a separate temple for yourself'. separate but equal, to me, is an oxymoron.

personally, i wish an inclusive hinduism. in this current day and age of egalitarianism, where communication is instantaneous and where ideas travel faster than the speed of light - i think for us to have a healthy future as hindus, we need to bring all of the castes and creeds together under one umbrella.

i also think, in order to achieve the above, we as brahmins, need to position ourselves a few notches down - willingly. this is not out of any viewing through 'guilt ridden eyes' or some profound introspection.

we as brahmins, have botched our chances for leadership and missed chances to promote unity. unity, implies, willingness to 'give'. we appear, by and large, i think, more concerned with the pang that our 'take' is increasingly less. we do not have credibility anybody, to lead any religious revival, i think, in tamil nadu.

to attribute, our lack of status to periyar, is to give him too much credit. many of our shortfalls are due to our own shortsightedness and shortcomings. we could have sensed the directions in which the winds were blowing, and adjusted our sails accordingly. instead, i think, we continued with full sails headon into oncoming storms, and have now been wrecked beyond redemption, in the socio political life, of tamil nadu.

i think all of us like to belong to a greater group. many of us, have shunned the timeworn garments of tradition, handed down by our ancestors to us. we (try to) identify with the new progressive tamil culture. others of us, appear to renounce the 'tamil' in us, and reach out forlornly, across the borders, to a vague union with other brahmins of india. or to an even more, vaguer, disturbing and divisive, hindutva. again, this is my opinion.

all in all, we as community, i think, are trying to come to terms with an increasingly fast paced changing world, trying to find a balance, and at the moment of acheiving it, find that the targets have moved. in this endeavour, we are no different, from other communities. i think so anyway.

again, this whole idea is debatable. but this is my personal view. does that make me a social progressive? a religious progressive?

frankly, i do not know. i am not sure whether i care about it either.

but i am grateful for the likes of nacchi and krs here, to provide a dose of reality and sanity, to an otherwise this diverse forum.

one bright light that i have identified in this milieu of spaghetti network of contradictions and conflictions, is the overall acceptance of the need to give. dhaanam. if there is one thing that appears to be a uniting thread, it is the need that we all feel towards the underdogs of our community.

it is said, that poverty and afflictions know no caste or creed. but i find personal satisfaction in doling out my mite rather selectively to those whom i am ancestrally kithed and kinned. such selective interpretation of charity might not stand the scrutiny of the finest of our finest, but for one who is so flawed as i am, it is an acceptable compromise. :)

thank you.
 
Last edited:
Now that this thread has been successfully hijacked, let me throw in my bit as well.

I think Sri Nacchinarkiniyan has raised what is possibly the toughest question in Hinduism, something even the great saints would find it difficult to answer.

The way i read Sri Nacchi is :

a) How to balance religious conservatism vs social progressiveness

b) If push comes to shove what should we dispense with ?

I am of the view that there is a definite need to balance religious consevatism and social progressiveness. Atleast in India, religion is in inalienable part of the social paradigm that lasting social equality wont be achieved without religious equality.

To that extent the various steps that have been taken to create an inclusive Hindu religious order are most welcome. Mu Ka's archakar rule is one instance when he, despite his ignorance, successfully married religious conservatism and social progressiveness.

Even with the political might at his disposal, he couldnt allow any Tom, Dick and Harry to perform the role of a priest. He could only mandate that anyone irrespective of his caste, if found qualified, could perform the role of the priest.

So the religious conservatism part, unknown to Mu Ka, was indeed maintained. Accordingly the first batch which includes OBCs and Dalits have been trained in priestcraft and are due to join some of the major temples of TN.

Mu Ka and his bunch of OBC lackeys would like us to believe that by just by removing religious deprivation the Dalits would be part of the mainstream. But the fact remains that the neo-brahmins of today, the OBCs are the stumbling block preventing the social emancipation of the Dalits.

One of the techniques of the egregious Dravidian parties is to keep looking back instead of ahead. I am of the opinion that it is immaterial today whether someone knows about the two tumbler system for ex or not. The fact is that today whether we know what is right.

By keeping the focus on the past and identifying the brahmins as the only perpetrators, the Dravidians are cleverly driving the attention away from their own and if i daresay bigger misdeeds.

In the cities of India today, no one even has the time, forget inclination, to practice untouchability. Today the breeding grounds of untouchability are the villages, which dont house the brahmins any more.

Talking rhetoric or enquiring into the origin of untouchability or it's religious sanction is not going to bring succor to the Dalits. The Dravidian parties know this, but to keep their vote bank intact and keep the proverbial damocles sword hanging over the neck of the brahmins, they continue to play the 'cause card'.

As much as it is a social problem, the solution doesnt lie in finding who started it. Even if we do, it makes no difference to the ground situation today.

Mankind didnt conquer space by getting to know what is the escape velocity ; only by "venturing into space" did mankind take the steps to unravel the mysteries of the outer space.

In my mind, discrimination is a no-no ; It is a no brainer. But should egalitarianism mean that there can be no differentiation at all ?

For instance should egalitarianism mean that any johnny can be the next Sankaracharya for ex ?

I dont think so.

But if there is a well qualified non-brahmin who can become a Sankaracharya, i personally wouldnt have a problem.

I dont know for sure but the succeeding pontiff to the Kanchi mutt have always been appointed by the incumbent, so should that be changed ? And will it be a symbol of social progressiveness ? I am not sure.

In summary, I think, the Dalits have to realize the game plan of the dravidians and realise that nothing meaningful would ever be achieved by looking into the past.

Afterall even the best of cars have only one reverse gear.

The Dalits need to be more demanding of their current masters, the OBCs who are depriving their opportunities in the garb of 'brahmanical oppression'.

As far as the Brahmins are concerned, we should accept the current social milieu as it is and devote our time and attention on circumventing the blockade.
 
kunjuppu said:
nachi, sesh, sb, happy,

i will try to present my views on so many interrelated topics, here and in other threads.

nachi, to start off, i will address your query re social progressiveness and religious conservatism. to initialize, i wish to say, that i am with on all your social views.

having said the above, i have found that labels may mean different things to different people. please permit me, to address your query, at an issue level. perhaps we can then extrapolate, to what it means vis a vis, conservative or progressive.

by social progressiveness, if it means, not practising discrimination through castes, considering dalits as of our own faith, eschewing the two tumbler system, i think i am for it.

then comes the issue of quotas in educational institutions. the stated aim is to get representation to other folks within the hindu community. which is in direct conflict with our own goals, and the single skillset that we have inherited ie pursuit of knowledge as a means to livelihood.

would it be progressive to support this purported egalitarian moveof educational quotas? or would it be prudent to go for the status quo, in the narrowest of terms of looking after the tamil brahmin interests? i think it comes down to personal preferences.

religious conservatism - would it mean the mastery of the vedas and the puranas, to seek the wisdom of the ancients, and find a solution to current day living? would it means seeking directions and living according to the strictures of mutts like kanchi?

i am not so sure, in many an instances, where religion and practice can be compartmentalized as distinct, particularly in a brahmin household. there are so much interwoven, i think.

is caste religion? or practice? two tumblers, is a practice, which is a derivative of religion.

all in all, i am sure, i know what i like and what i don't like.

i don't like casteism, the 'othi pO' attitudes emanating from our supposed 'purity and ritual cleanliness', the shaving of widows, the hypocracy of the mutts, and particularly the coterie of ex executives who appear to hover around the managing of these institutions.

i am very uncomfortable with the way we carry out our rituals.

let us take the three key life defining functions:

birth: when the first born arrives, there is atleast in my family, the usual hullaballoo and the functions that go along with it. nothing happens when the other children follow. not sure, whether it is religious or social that we focus here. the first born gets the benefit of the homams and the the ones that follow have nothing to their benefit.

marriage: it has become a f(3c) ie a function of cash, convenience and comfort. any of us here can translate and relate to the 3Cs to varying levels of comfort (or discomfort). nowadays these are also coldly calculated formulaes, intended to maximize the perceived opportunities of the couple, through synergies produced through a common secular profession (!)

death: this is where we appear to seek elaboration, for after all, this is the ultimate unknown journey. i have had to be the primary participant of death ceremonies since early teenhood (my sonless maternal grandparents) and even then, in my childhood wonderment, i could only realize the levels of compromise and duplicity practised by all the participants. i have written some of my experiences elsewhere in this forum.

how much of these above rituals are pure religion? our concept of ritual purity, conditions our minds,i think, to wallow in the deepest of filth that is current day ganges, and yet claim to have purified our soul. it is but a fact, that kooja of gangajalam, indeed putrify, in a few days, producing an unexplained dismay among the recepients, who have been storing it for special purifying occassions. do we need all this to reinforce our faith? or is it practice?

personally, i find it more satisfying, to give vaazhakkai/rice as dhaanam, than those donations of heifers or ancient foods, involving the chavundi brahmins, for whom we have nothing but contempt otherwise, and yet whom we need in our deepest moment of anguish. personally, i categorize, our treatment of chavundis, as our biggest existing shame. no amount of whitewashing would be acceptable to me.

i also wish to say something about 'separate but equal' sentiments expressed elsewhere. it has something to do with, 'if you don't like my customs, go set up a separate temple for yourself'. separate but equal, to me, is an oxymoron.

personally, i wish an inclusive hinduism. in this current day and age of egalitarianism, where communication is instantaneous and where ideas travel faster than the speed of light - i think for us to have a healthy future as hindus, we need to bring all of the castes and creeds together under one umbrella.

i also think, in order to achieve the above, we as brahmins, need to position ourselves a few notches down - willingly. this is not out of any viewing through 'guilt ridden eyes' or some profound introspection.

we as brahmins, have botched our chances for leadership and missed chances to promote unity. unity, implies, willingness to 'give'. we appear, by and large, i think, more concerned with the pang that our 'take' is increasingly less. we do not have credibility anybody, to lead any religious revival, i think, in tamil nadu.

to attribute, our lack of status to periyar, is to give him too much credit. many of our shortfalls are due to our own shortsightedness and shortcomings. we could have sensed the directions in which the winds were blowing, and adjusted our sails accordingly. instead, i think, we continued with full sails headon into oncoming storms, and have now been wrecked beyond redemption, in the socio political life, of tamil nadu.

i think all of us like to belong to a greater group. many of us, have shunned the timeworn garments of tradition, handed down by our ancestors to us. we (try to) identify with the new progressive tamil culture. others of us, appear to renounce the 'tamil' in us, and reach out forlornly, across the borders, to a vague union with other brahmins of india. or to an even more, vaguer, disturbing and divisive, hindutva. again, this is my opinion.

all in all, we as community, i think, are trying to come to terms with an increasingly fast paced changing world, trying to find a balance, and at the moment of acheiving it, find that the targets have moved. in this endeavour, we are no different, from other communities. i think so anyway.

again, this whole idea is debatable. but this is my personal view. does that make me a social progressive? a religious progressive?

frankly, i do not know. i am not sure whether i care about it either.

but i am grateful for the likes of nacchi and krs here, to provide a dose of reality and sanity, to an otherwise this diverse forum.

one bright light that i have identified in this milieu of spaghetti network of contradictions and conflictions, is the overall acceptance of the need to give. dhaanam. if there is one thing that appears to be a uniting thread, it is the need that we all feel towards the underdogs of our community.

it is said, that poverty and afflictions know no caste or creed. but i find personal satisfaction in doling out my mite rather selectively to those whom i am ancestrally kithed and kinned. such selective interpretation of charity might not stand the scrutiny of the finest of our finest, but for one who is so flawed as i am, it is an acceptable compromise. :)

thank you.
Click to expand...
hi kunappu sir,
i can understand your views/opinions...there are always two views about
rituals/ceremonies.. even smritis are different on it...some smritis are
saying 16 samskarsa..means from birth to death.......some says ten..
some smriti says 32 samskaras....i can understand your modern approach..
we live in westen countries.. so our thoughts more modern outlook..
but in india especially in tamil nadu... may not possible to change immediately.. we use more convenient approach for our ritual in
western counteries.. due to time/ other factors...EVERY RULE HAS
AN EXEMPTION......EVERY EXEMPTION HAS A RULE......if we dilute/
compromised in our way of life(ritual/ceremonies)...others will
take advantage...like Mu Ka and other enemies of brahmnism/hinduism.
hinduism has more personal approach than any other world religions.

REGARDS
tbs
 
Nacchi!

I think you are completely having a coloured vision. If likes and dislikes are inhuman , then what you say is correct. But Likes and dislikes makes a human - HUMAN.

there are many humanly solution, like our elders practices of drinking without contacting with saliva etc.. do a campaign on that practice. that's more human

Bhagavat geeta is not quoted to supported for untouchability, it is quoted to emphasis on Jathi - please don't mix-up.

On "Service to humanity .... " quote. you can't force others to do service, it should be voulantary. The workers in the service industry may not have Money in their pocket , but they do have a heart and preferences.

I ask you , why don't you ask the looters of india - to have service mind.
why don't you ask the bankers - charging extra-orbidant interest rates to be service minded.

you can't ask them... only poor workers are exploited..

Just my 20%
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote was not to me. My 1% intrusion in between here.

malgova.mango said:
Bhagavat geeta is not quoted to supported for untouchability, it is quoted to emphasis on Jathi - please don't mix-up.

Any text can be interepreted in any way. From the masters i have sought clarification so far, there is no jathi in bhagavad gita - the context in which it is quoted is misplaced.

I ask you , why don't you ask the looters of india - to have service mind.
why don't you ask the bankers - charging extra-orbidant interest rates to be service minded.

you can't ask them... only poor workers are exploited..

When service to humanity starts with oneself putting in some form of effort, one is automatically not giving an exploiter a chance to exploit.
Click to expand...
 
Two Hands Needed to Clap and make a sound

>>We were accessories to the heinous deeds committed in the name of the caste system.<<

Shri Nacchinarkiniyan

Rendu Kayayum Thattinaa Thaan Sattham.Illiya!

Why Brahmins alone should be persecuted?Did other's brain take a walk?

sb
 
தமிழ் வலைப் பதிவர்களின் போக்கை யாராவது மாற்ற முயலலாமே.

தேவ்
 
Srimadh Bhagavatham

Canto 6: Prescribed Duties for Mankind

Chapter 15: The Saints Nārada and Ańgirā Instruct King Citraketu

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase:

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 6.15.8

deha-dehi-vibhāgo 'yam

aviveka-kṛtaḥ purā

jāti-vyakti-vibhāgo 'yaḿ

yathā vastuni kalpitaḥ

SYNONYMS

deha — of this body; dehi — and the proprietor of the body; vibhāgaḥ — the division; ayam — this; aviveka — from ignorance; kṛtaḥ — made; purā — from time immemorial; jāti — of the class or caste; vyakti — and the individual; vibhāgaḥ — division; ayam — this; yathā — just as; vastuni — in the original object; kalpitaḥ — imagined.

TRANSLATION

Divisions of generalization and specification, such as nationality and individuality, are the imaginations of persons who are not advanced in knowledge.

PURPORT

Actually there are two energies — material and spiritual. Both of them are ever-existing because they are emanations from the eternal truth, the Supreme Lord. Because the individual soul, the individual living entity, has desired to act in forgetfulness of his original identity since time immemorial, he is accepting different positions in material bodies and being designated according to many divisions of nationality, community, society, species and so on.

http://vedabase.net/sb/6/15/6/en

sb
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top