Hinduism Vs Rest

[fire]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Nothing wrong in arguing for veg

I feel theres nothing nothing wrong in arguing for vegeterianism..Ofcourse we cannot determine the character based on it.Even Hitler i heard was a veg supporter but he was cruel.But dont forget we had Gandhi who practised it.Even in Tirukkural we have a seperate chapter for it which heavily come down on nonveg eaters and love towards other living beings is a noble policy even at this time .Many brahmins go away from it in modern days and they have the legal right to do it. And ofcourse there are follower for veg in other communities also. In my point of view , if you can tolerate the sufferings of the hen or goat or anyother animal , while YOU KILL it you have the moral right to taste it. If you say someone else has to kill it and i will use my money to taste it I guess its morally wrong.You are contradicting with your mind(Who cares at 21st century ).

 

[goundamani]

Dear Fire,

I am a staunch vegetarian.That was because of my upbringing and religious values.But that doesnt make me look down upon non-vegetarians.Humans belong to ape comunity which is omnivorous by nature.Can we blame apes, lions, tigers for being non-vegetarians?This is the nature of that species by the design of God.Who is to be blamed here?

whether we accept it or not, a huge majority of humans are non-vegetarians. Being a tiny minority and abusing non-vegetarians doesnt look good. If we accuse somebody of "being a rabid meat eater", that will be given different interpretations by the rest of the society.Also that is a highly offensive way of spreading vegetarianism.It reminds me of PETA, who threw blood on customers of KFC and Mcdonalds. That created a severe backlash among public.

Saying all this I agree that people have freedom of speech. If somebody wants to call non-vegetarians as "Rabid meat eater" , while opposing that thought process, I certainly will agree that he/she has the right to say what he/she says. Only if a thousand ideologies clash, we will know the truth.

 

[NARAS]

Suresh

What !!! How do you know Arjuna was a veggie and Ekalavya was not ?
Being a veggie or not is an individual's choice and that has nothing to do with his character. Many bengali brahmins eat meat. So does that make them not brahmins ?

BTW, Jainism has much stricter implementation on not killing other living beings even insects. Let us not try to judge people by what they eat.

Why dont we stop this vegetarian or not discussion and try to focus on matters that help our community.

Ramki

[/quote]


SIR - by this yardstick , you can even say that drinking is a personal choice and drinking will not affect character of a person. is it 100% true? you can even claim the same thing about smoking. you are saying bengali brahmins are eating fish. i have also heard about it before. but how can they continue to call themselves as brahmins if they consume animals? its like saying 'a vegetarian consumes meat!' how can a person continue to be a vegetarian if he eats meat? similarly if you are a non veggie you are out of brahminism - lock, stock & barrel. the insistence of jainism on vegeteranism is totally impractical. i dont think even jains follow it today. but the insistence of vegeteranism by brahminism is practical.the paramacharya is an example of this.

if you ask me what is capital of japan i will say 'tokyo'. but i have never gone to tokyo! i have only heard and read that tokyo is capital of japan. like that the story about arjuna & ekalavya is not my own, but what i heard from elders. i do not know to which caste arjuna belonged, but i presume he must have been a vegetarian.

i cannot completely stop writing about vegeteranism, because for me & brahminism it is the oxygen, which gives identity for this caste and religion!
vegetaranism is associated with divinity & holiness like the paramacharya. following vegeteranism in its true spirit is the best way of helping our community proactively. it is also the best tribute we can offer to our great forefathers and ancestors,who were all veggies. i dont think hitler was a vegetarian as it is said. even if so, he should have been mentally unstable. remember , a mentally unstable vegetarian is more dangerous than a non veggie. but generally the character of veggies will always be more noble than non veggies. vegeteranism is the greatest gift and discovery of brahminism to this universe. i hope & wish the whole INDIA turns vegetarian one day, though i dont know if it will happen in my life time.

but i always concentrate & will also concentrate on other issues also.

 

[NARAS]

sir - if a tamil film which shows a brahmin hero in a positive light becomes a big hit, other film makers will follow suit,and start showing brahmins as positive heroes, because this tamil film industry is a paradise for foolish & superstitious persons. but who will bell the cat???

 

[goundamani]

sir - if a tamil film which shows a brahmin hero in a positive light becomes a big hit, other film makers will follow suit,and start showing brahmins as positive heroes, because this tamil film industry is a paradise for foolish & superstitious persons. but who will bell the cat???

Anniyan
Alwar.

In these movies heroes were brahmins.They became super hit.

 

[vanam9394]

Humans are herbivorous. We can see that by absence of claws and fangs. We also have appendites similar to deers.
If we say that eating meat is natural for human beings then we are no better than animals. Just that we use two legs to walk instead of four. More over lions and tigers kill their pray for food but humans buy meat from shops which slaughter animals in gruesome manner. How good is that ?

 

[NARAS]

Anniyan
Alwar.

In these movies heroes were brahmins.They became super hit.

sir - i have not seen the film ALWAR. but i have seen scenes on tv, read reviews and heard about anniyan. in this film the hero is a split personality, and the aggresive side of the hero is shown as a non brahmin, whereas the quailing, wailing & crying fellow is shown as a brahmin!

 

[NARAS]

Being a veggie or not is an individual's choice and that has nothing to do with his character.

Ramki

[/quote][/quote]

sir - if you extend this logic, you can even justify not only drinking& smoking but also gambling, horse racing etc..!!!!!

 

[hariharan1972]

Couldn't resist a post

Humans are herbivorous. We can see that by absence of claws and fangs. We also have appendites similar to deers.
If we say that eating meat is natural for human beings then we are no better than animals. Just that we use two legs to walk instead of four. More over lions and tigers kill their pray for food but humans buy meat from shops which slaughter animals in gruesome manner. How good is that ?

I know the topic of "non vegetarianism" has been beaten to death love: ). I resisted posting on this considering the views of the moderators. But before they impose an anti-dumping law on this topic, my 2 pence is :

While definitely not holding a candle for non vegetarianism, there are few points to be considered

a) Availability of rice, wheat, pulses & cereals is not uniform across the world. This perhaps determined the food habits of people in different parts of the world.

b) Long long ago, there was no concept of free trading. Also the information flow wasn't there. Hence even if one country had a surplus it could not sell it's food grains to another country.

c) By your logic if everyone in the world today turns a vegan, the economic impact of the same has to be understood. If by consensus we agree that non-vegetarians exceed vegans, such a huge float moving to vegetarianism will impair the ecological balance atleast for few decades if not more since food production cannot be increased substantially in the short run. Eventually technological improvements would kick in but i suspect that the eco balance will be affected.

 

[NARAS]

I know the topic of "non vegetarianism" has been beaten to death love: ). I resisted posting on this considering the views of the moderators. But before they impose an anti-dumping law on this topic, my 2 pence is :

While definitely not holding a candle for non vegetarianism, there are few points to be considered

a) Availability of rice, wheat, pulses & cereals is not uniform across the world. This perhaps determined the food habits of people in different parts of the world.

b) Long long ago, there was no concept of free trading. Also the information flow wasn't there. Hence even if one country had a surplus it could not sell it's food grains to another country.

c) By your logic if everyone in the world today turns a vegan, the economic impact of the same has to be understood. If by consensus we agree that non-vegetarians exceed vegans, such a huge float moving to vegetarianism will impair the ecological balance atleast for few decades if not more since food production cannot be increased substantially in the short run. Eventually technological improvements would kick in but i suspect that the eco balance will be affected.

sir - i am not saying the whole world should become veggie. i am only saying all brahmins in the world, whereever you are should always be vegans. i also believe whole of india (not whole world)turns veggie one day, though it may not happen during my life time. if meat eating continues at present rate, i dont think there will be any animals at all in the planet one day! ironically lot of meat eating takes place in the name of religion! what sort of god is that he who asks his followers to butcher living creatures in the name of culture and religion????

 

[NARAS]

SIR - many persons confuse brahminsim with other religions, and try to impose practices of other religions in brahminism. brahminism is the only faith in the world which allows many forms of idolatory. non brahminst hinduism is an animist faith, worshipping trees, animals, sun, fire, moon etc.,since brahminism also worships trees, animals, sun, fire & moon, both these faiths found many similarities between them, though they differ in idol worship.
REMEMBER IT IS ALWAYS EASY TO FIND OUT NONRELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VARIOUS RELIGIONS. BUT THERE ARE MORE RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES , THAN RELIGIOUS SIMILARITIES BETWEEN VARIOUS RELIGIONS!
in orthodox hinduism, re birth is also an important belief. so all persons will be born in four different varnas during each and every birth by turn. so the supremacy advocated for brahmins is only temporary, only for the period during which he is a brahmin. in previous and next births, the same fellow would be born as a non brahmin and he will not enjoy any supremacy!!!


the constitution bans untouchability without specifying what untouchability means. untouchability is a religious term. untouchability is banned in public life in all spheres. but can any constitution or govt. ban untouchability in private life? if so all caste associations have to be banned, becase no caste association allows persons of other castes to become even members of their association! like that no women association, college allow men as even members into their association or college! should then all women's associations be banned under the pretext that they are practicising a form of untouchability? most of the persons inthe world marry only within their faith and do not like to marry a person from other faith. is this untouchability? then what does untouchability mean? if inspite of having a common god, there is discrimination between members of same faith, like black christians were tortuted in south africa, europe and usa, that is untouchability. muslims of various sects killing each other is also untouchability because they are violently attacking each other inspite of having a common god. but brahmin-non brahmin differences do not come under untouchability. right from the days of parasurama, when kashatryas tortured brahmins, brahmins & non brahmins have clashed with each other. whereas these clashes are a penal offence today, they certainly do not attract provisions of untouchability. afterall very few cases have been filed in police stations or courts accusing bramins of indulging in untouchability.
during earlier centuries, many brahmin temples were attacked and converted into non brahmin places of worship and vice versa. at one stage it was not even clear how many places of worship were original, and how many were 'converted'.it was thus decided by both brahmins & non brahmins to allow each other to visit and worship any temple. but the control of administration was not to be changed.
generally i think thereare two things which everybody should renounce.1. hatred or violence against any relgion. 2. advocating of general supremacy of one religion over another. but at the same time individuality of each relgion should be respected and persons of one religion should not try to occupy or convert or impose into places of worship of other religions.

actually even if lord shiva were to come to a vaishava temple,he cannot become priest there! similarly even lord vishnu cannot become adminstrator of a saiva temple! like that even brahmins of one sect cannot become priests or administrators of temples of other brahmin sect. when there are so many restrictions on gods and brahmins, what is wrong in restricting people of other faiths. there is no untouchability in this

sir - it is strange to see members of this forum have so much respect for views of illiterate 'rationalists'! one member says untouchabililty has been sanctioned in scriptures. but scriptures like ramayana , mahabaratha were written by non brahmins! Bhagavad Gita was discoursed by Lord krishna, also a non brahmin! Lord Krishna says all 4 varnas belong to him, and that he belongs to all 4 varnas also. the 4 varnas not only denote 4 stages of life of a brahmin or hindu, but also 4 various forms of births of a hindu. it is believed in each & every birth ,a person will have different castes like Lord vishnu who was brahmin first, and then took non brahmin avatars as yadava Lord krishna and kashatriya Lord Rama in his next births.

brahminism, unlike islam& christianity does not emphasis on conversions. in fact scriptures emphasis that only brahmins should read them! so brahminism is not an universal faith, but a specialist restrictive ideology only for a few who abide by vegeteranism,faith in god, rituals, idolworship etc.,

apologists of caste quota argue that it was because of domination for so many centuries that brahmins are able to stand in forefront of govt.jobs & education even today, inspite of no govt. support. But for the past many centuries, india had been ruled by islamic invaders & british christian fascists & secular 'rationalists'! Not only did brahmins did not get any favour during these times, they were in fact subjected to torture & harassment ! how then are they still able to survive? is it because of vegeteranism? genes? vedic belief? i suspect it is because of all these three and much more! why is it that muslims, christians in india inspite of being in power for so many years,are struggling to avail govt. jobs & educational opportunities without govt. support? WHY WAS ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY NOT ABLE TO WIPE OUT PROBLEMS OF INDIA LIKE UNTOUCHABILITY? WHY DID INDIA LAG BEHIND IN ALL SPHERES WHEN COMPARED TO WORLD STANDARDS, AFTER ISLAMIC & BRITISH RULE? DOES THIS SHOW THAT ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY OR FOR THAT MATTER BUDDHISM HAVE FAILED IN INDIA? IT IS OBVIOUS THESE RELIGIONS DO NOT HAVE THE MAGIC WAND REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE THE PROBLEMS OF THIS COUNTRY!!

Brahmins also believe in respecting rule of law. the population of brahmins has been decreasing day by day ever since independence, whereas population of non brahmins has been increasing manifold since 1947 due to conversions, infiltration, refusal to adapt family planning due to caste quotas etc.,

remember, even lord shiva will not be allowed into sanctum santorum of a vaishnavaite temple. lord vishnu also cannot enter sanctum sanctorum of shiva temples. priests of one temple have no sanctity in temples of other sects. is this untouchability? it is not! advocating supremacy of one ideology inside the place of worship of that particular ideology cannot be called untouchability.

even founding fathers of indian constitution awarded caste quotas only for 10 yrs. only for sc/st and only for a few communties, only in certain restricted govt.jobs & educational spheres. so even they have not subscribed to the view of illiterate 'rationalists' about brahmin dominance , brahmin torture & harassment for many centuries! had they believed in all these, they would have been much more liberal in their quota allocation! but thanks to the maganamity of indian judges, caste quotas have been extended & increased thus spreading their tentacles all over the country in almost all areas! indian judges seem to be having more respect for illiterate 'rationalists' rather than rule of law, because otherwise there is no way a provision like caste quota , which is so blatantly violative of basic character of indian constitution which proclaims equality of all castes, has been legally allowed to continue for such a long period!

when christianity & islam ,who have a common god for all of their followers irrespective of their sect have miserably failed to enforce equality and are struggling to bring their various denominations together, how can you expect total equality in a country, which has a religion,which does not believe in the fascist concept of 'one god'?

Discrimination of any person on any basis should be discouraged. but brahmins insisting on continuance of brahminic ideology in brahmin temples like sanskrit recital etc., should not be construed as untouchability.!!!!

 

[NARAS]

Sir - I Have Always Felt That If Persons Worshipping One Common God Discriminate Against Each Other, That Is Untouchability. For Example Whites Christians Torturing & Harassing Black Christians Inspite Of Having A Common God. Muslims Killing Each Other Inspite Of Having A Common God. But If Persons Worshipping Different Gods Clash With Each Other That Is Not Untouchability. Of Course, Even This Is Condemnable. But This Does Not Come Under The Ambit Or Purview Of Untouchability. So Brahmin Non Brahmin Clashes Do Not Come Under Untouchability.

 

[goundamani]

in orthodox hinduism, re birth is also an important belief. so all persons will be born in four different varnas during each and every birth by turn. so the supremacy advocated for brahmins is only temporary, only for the period during which he is a brahmin. in previous and next births, the same fellow would be born as a non brahmin and he will not enjoy any supremacy!!!

Nobody believes in such theories anymore.Who knows what happens in next birth?This is no reason to give supremacy to brahmins.One can only treat others as equals, not as supreme. Propogating such views does no good for anybody.In all births all are equal.Simple.

actually even if lord shiva were to come to a vaishava temple,he cannot become priest there! similarly even lord vishnu cannot become adminstrator of a saiva temple! like that even brahmins of one sect cannot become priests or administrators of temples of other brahmin sect. when there are so many restrictions on gods and brahmins, what is wrong in restricting people of other faiths. there is no untouchability in this

says who? who levied such conditions for shiva and vishnu?They might obey such rules, but not the people. Whoever levied such conditions, they need not be obeyed now. A new set of people make the laws.Old laws are no more valid.:thumb:

 

[NARAS]

Sir - I Have Always Felt That If Persons Worshipping One Common God Discriminate Against Each Other, That Is Untouchability. For Example Whites Christians Torturing & Harassing Black Christians Inspite Of Having A Common God. Muslims Killing Each Other Inspite Of Having A Common God. But If Persons Worshipping Different Gods Clash With Each Other That Is Not Untouchability. Of Course, Even This Is Condemnable. But This Does Not Come Under The Ambit Or Purview Of Untouchability. So Brahmin Non Brahmin Clashes Do Not Come Under Untouchability.

SIR- THE Karunanidhi Muthuvelar always vomits the fumes of periyar about brahmins. but why is he not talking about what the periyar said about kannagi, thiruvalluvar, tamil language, prophet mohammed, muslims, chastity of women etc., will the muthuvelar apply the views of the periar on chastity for the women of his family? for e.g. the periar said that if a man has 2girlfriends, a women should have 3 boyfriends!! will the muthuvelar say openly that women of his family should follow the periar in this matter? the periar also said women need not have any chastity at all! are women of the muthuvelar family following the periar in this aspect???? if not, will the dayalu, rajathi, kanimozhi, durga, kaveri openly say that they disagree with the periar ????????

The periar has also said that he considers Prophet Mohammed only to be an ordinary man! will the muthuvelar accept this? what will happen to the islamic vote bank of 'rationalist' dmk if he openly accepts this view of the periar?????

 

[NARAS]

Nobody believes in such theories anymore.Who knows what happens in next birth?This is no reason to give supremacy to brahmins.One can only treat others as equals, not as supreme. Propogating such views does no good for anybody.In all births all are equal.Simple.



says who? who levied such conditions for shiva and vishnu?They might obey such rules, but not the people. Whoever levied such conditions, they need not be obeyed now. A new set of people make the laws.Old laws are no more valid.:thumb:[/font]

sir- i only said that views about re birth which were there many centuries ago. i am not saying that these view should be given legal status today. please do not put words into my mouth. at the same time, there is nothing wrong or illegal in a person following these about re birth in this private life.

the restrictions in temples about rival priests & gods existed ,exist & will exist permanently. the existence of these conditions clearly prove that brahmins restrict even their own fold, and so there is nothing wrong in brahmins restricting persons of other folds. temples are not gvt. properties.these are all built, maintained not by govt. funds, so govts. cannot interfere in these things. the existence of these conditions have not caused any harm to anybody. then what is the need to change them. govts., if they change any existing arrangement, should always ensure that the new arrangement which they are proposing is better than the existing. i do not think it will be possible in this matter, because those who are advocating changes are all illiterate 'rationalists' suffering from jealousy & inferiority complex. imposing practices of one faith on places of worship of other faith , even amongst brahmins themselves,is barbaric and illegal. the individuality of each sect should be respected and not tampered. in a secular country,a govt.has no business interfering and poking its nose in these sort of things.!!

 

[NARAS]

Sonia Maina Stripped Of Her Secular Mask!

[SIR - the good news is out! the bjp-shiv sena combine has done better than sona maina in maharashtra municipal elections in places like mumbai, the commercial capital of india, nagpur & pune.these are all places dominated by educated persons. of course, the shiv sena -bjp combine has benefitted because sharadpawar's NCP did not have a tie-up with sonia maina!

these results clearly prove that what ever 'victory' sonia maina gained in 2004 parliament elections were due to strong alliance she had and not because of her 'secular' outlook. as many as 4 parties, including the muthuvelar's DMK which were with BJP in 1999 parliament elections, opportunistically defected to sonia maina in 2004, helping the maina get few extra votes & seats , helping the maina to form a govt. apart from that sharad pawar who contested indepenently in 1999 and split the congress votes in maharashtra, aligned with the maina in 2004, and this also helped the maina in some states to get extra votes & seats. there was an election commissioner called krishnamurthy (ironically a brahmin) who alongwith the controversial christian fundamentalist election commissioner J.M. Lyngdon postponed elections to gujarat & andhra pradesh assemblies on silly pretexts, helping the maina. the krishnamurthy also conducted parliament elections almost 1 month after parliament was dissolved, helping the maina conduct negotiations with various parties to form alliances. i remember an editorial in thuglak in 2004 immediately after parliament election results were announced that 'election commission in 2004 not only conducted elections, it also 'selected' the winning party'!

the P.chidambaram, finance minister of india 'boasts' about performance of indian economy under his rule. but by opening the economy more and more to foreigners, he is making the country dependent on foreign investment, which is highly dangerous! SELF RELIANCE & self sufficiency have been given a go by! foreign investment is highly volatile. the growth which we achieve due to foreign investment is not something to be proud of. this investment could suddenly decrease , putting the country's economy in peril! BJP tried to achieve a higher growth rate,not by depending on foreign investment, but by indian private investment, which is the right model for a country like india.
but having a italian as its leader, the present govt. does not seem to have any reservations about selling the country to foreigners!!!!!

 

[NARAS]

SIR- THE Karunanidhi Muthuvelar always vomits the fumes of periyar about brahmins. but why is he not talking about what the periyar said about kannagi, thiruvalluvar, tamil language, prophet mohammed, muslims, chastity of women etc., will the muthuvelar apply the views of the periar on chastity for the women of his family? for e.g. the periar said that if a man has 2girlfriends, a women should have 3 boyfriends!! will the muthuvelar say openly that women of his family should follow the periar in this matter? the periar also said women need not have any chastity at all! are women of the muthuvelar family following the periar in this aspect???? if not, will the dayalu, rajathi, kanimozhi, durga, kaveri openly say that they disagree with the periar ????????

The periar has also said that he considers Prophet Mohammed only to be an ordinary man! will the muthuvelar accept this? what will happen to the islamic vote bank of 'rationalist' dmk if he openly accepts this view of the periar?????

SIR- I would like to post the same question to apologists of the periar like the k.haasan, the vairamuthan, the satyarajan & the vivekan. will they allow their wives or other women members of their family to follow the periars view on chastity? will they insist that their wives , daughters, sisters, mothers, daughter's in law follow the periar's policy of free sex??????

 

[NARAS]

SIR- I would like to post the same question to apologists of the periar like the k.haasan, the vairamuthan, the satyarajan & the vivekan. will they allow their wives or other women members of their family to follow the periars view on chastity? will they insist that their wives , daughters, sisters, mothers, daughter's in law follow the periar's policy of free sex??????

sir - brahmins generally marry their daughters or sons at a relatively early age , when compared to other religions or castes. this is of course not child marriage. this is legally tenable,. even law says marriage age for girls in india is 18, and men,21.i have read in the magazine 'kalki' that the periar once ridiculed brahmins about this!
brahmins feel that at once sexual ideas entire the mind of a girl or boy that is round about his 20s, it is better they get married, so that they satiate their sexual desire within the four walls of family life. otherwise they may look for outside sources to quence their sexual thrist, which will be bad for them and the society also in all ways.

of course, nowadays, even brahmins marry relatively later. for example, yours truly got married at the age of 31!!!!

 

[NARAS]

[
the P.chidambaram, finance minister of india 'boasts' about performance of indian economy under his rule. but by opening the economy more and more to foreigners, he is making the country dependent on foreign investment, which is highly dangerous! SELF RELIANCE & self sufficiency have been given a go by! foreign investment is highly volatile. the growth which we achieve due to foreign investment is not something to be proud of. this investment could suddenly decrease , putting the country's economy in peril! BJP tried to achieve a higher growth rate,not by depending on foreign investment, but by indian private investment, which is the right model for a country like india.
but having a italian as its leader, the present govt. does not seem to have any reservations about selling the country to foreigners!!!!!

sir - the dmk gvt. in t.nadu has been recklessly doling out land, gas, rice, electricity etc., out of tax payers money. this is foolish economics! unlike doles like clothes, land, gas, rice & electricity are ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES, whose supply always falls short of demand in t.nadu for many years! these sort of doles will not only lead to increased demand, but also result in shortage and skyrocketing of prices of these essential commodities!!!!!

 

[NARAS]

sir -
even founding fathers of indian constitution awarded caste quotas only for 10 yrs. only for sc/st and only for a few communties, only in certain restricted govt.jobs & educational spheres. so even they have not subscribed to the view of illiterate 'rationalists' about brahmin dominance , brahmin torture & harassment for many centuries! had they believed in all these, they would have been much more liberal in their quota allocation! but thanks to the maganamity of indian judges, caste quotas have been extended & increased thus spreading their tentacles all over the country in almost all areas! indian judges seem to be having more respect for illiterate 'rationalists' rather than rule of law, because otherwise there is no way a provision like caste quota , which is so blatantly violative of basic character of indian constitution which proclaims equality of all castes, has been legally allowed to continue for such a long period!

sir - it is shocking to see that whereas even millionaires (or billionaires?) like the karunanidhi, the marans are classified as 'backward' caste, poor priests who earn meagre income are branded as 'forward' just because they are brahmins! why are the courts and judges not questioning these sort of absurdness?????

 

[goundamani]

sir- i only said that views about re birth which were there many centuries ago. i am not saying that these view should be given legal status today. please do not put words into my mouth. at the same time, there is nothing wrong or illegal in a person following these about re birth in this private life.

I agree that there is nothing illegal in following caste supremacy by rebirth in private life. But at the same time, there is nothing illegal if the rest of the society hates such people. Anybody will be treated in the same way in which they treat others.

the restrictions in temples about rival priests & gods existed ,exist & will exist permanently. the existence of these conditions clearly prove that brahmins restrict even their own fold, and so there is nothing wrong in brahmins restricting persons of other folds.

Brahmins dont make rules now.That era is long gone.Others listened to such 'restrictions' earlier, but now they have awakened.They are in the law making capacity now.So there is no need for those rules to be followed now.

temples are not gvt. properties.these are all built, maintained not by govt. funds, so govts. cannot interfere in these things.
the existence of these conditions have not caused any harm to anybody. then what is the need to change them.

Temples are not private properties of brahmins, either.Nobody gave them ownership of these temples. These conditions caused untold harm to the society.Nobody can claim ownership to temples built by people.These temples belong to all people.If anybody can lay conditions now,it is the government.Rule of law is supreme in our country and people who run temples cannot argue that they are above law.

govts., if they change any existing arrangement, should always ensure that the new arrangement which they are proposing is better than the existing. i do not think it will be possible in this matter, because those who are advocating changes are all illiterate 'rationalists' suffering from jealousy & inferiority complex.

Had hindus themselves allowed reforms like allowing dalits in temples,making people of all castes as priests,there wont be any need for rationalism at all in tamilnadu.Hindus did not do it and now rationalists have to bring reforms.

imposing practices of one faith on places of worship of other faith , even amongst brahmins themselves,is barbaric and illegal. the individuality of each sect should be respected and not tampered. in a secular country,a govt.has no business interfering and poking its nose in these sort of things.!!

People who go to a temple all belong to hindu faith.These temples belong to hindus. People who believe brahmanism is a seperate religion, cannot impose their faith on others. Actually such claims will end up harming the cause of brahmins themselves. Individuality of any sect will be respected as long as it doesnt contradict with principle of equality.If a sect claims that it alone has supremacy over other sects in temples such a claim need not be entertained.
Individuality will be respected as long as it doesnt collide with equality.

 

[NARAS]

I agree that there is nothing illegal in following caste supremacy by rebirth in private life. But at the same time, there is nothing illegal if the rest of the society hates such people. Anybody will be treated in the same way in which they treat others.



Brahmins dont make rules now.That era is long gone.Others listened to such 'restrictions' earlier, but now they have awakened.They are in the law making capacity now.So there is no need for those rules to be followed now.



Temples are not private properties of brahmins, either.Nobody gave them ownership of these temples. These conditions caused untold harm to the society.Nobody can claim ownership to temples built by people.These temples belong to all people.If anybody can lay conditions now,it is the government.Rule of law is supreme in our country and people who run temples cannot argue that they are above law.




Had hindus themselves allowed reforms like allowing dalits in temples,making people of all castes as priests,there wont be any need for rationalism at all in tamilnadu.Hindus did not do it and now rationalists have to bring reforms.



People who go to a temple all belong to hindu faith.These temples belong to hindus. People who believe brahmanism is a seperate religion, cannot impose their faith on others. Actually such claims will end up harming the cause of brahmins themselves. Individuality of any sect will be respected as long as it doesnt contradict with principle of equality.If a sect claims that it alone has supremacy over other sects in temples such a claim need not be entertained.
Individuality will be respected as long as it doesnt collide with equality.

sir - TEMPLE is like a country. a country belongs to citizens of that country. foreigners can come and visit that country. but they cannot claim equal rights like citizens. like that, any person can visit a temple. but temples should be run only as per the reigning deity of the temple. temples are not govt. property, so govts. cannot interfere in that. temples are private affairs. so anybody has right to say that within temples only the rituals of the sect to the god of the temple should be followed. those who do not like this rule, need not visit temples at all! if you have respect for god, you will automatically have respect for the individuality of the rituals of all sects. what sort of 'rationalism' is it to say ' i believe in god. but not in brahminism!' the trinity- creator brahma, protector vishnu, destroyer siva - are all bramins. the priests in all orthodox temples are brahmins. so it is not hinduism, but hypocrisy to say that 'god up up! brahmins down down!

in a democracy, it is not majority opinion which always matters. but rule of law. to say that non brahmins now have the right to modify laws as per their whims and fancies just because they are in a majority reminds me of a man sixfeet tall saying to man whose height was only 3 feet -'even if i am wrong, i should prevail over you,because i am 3 feet taller than you!!!' (famous quote by mahatma). this is the tyranny of majority over minority. this is fascism. the bottomline of democracy is freedom of speech. trampling over freedom of speech on the pretext of enforcing 'social justice' paves the way for dominance of fascist ideals like 'rationalism' & 'communism'

where is the question of imposing here? it is anti brahmins who are imposing their practices in brahmin temples, and not other way round. has any brahmin asked non brahmin temples like melmaruvathur etc., to modify its practices and be run like orthodox brahmin temples? what is the need to change existing rituals which have been there for centuries? when govts. go for a change in any matter there should be a need. there should also be the guarantee that the new arrangement proposed by the govt. should always be better than the existing arrangement. in this case, there is neither need or guarantee of any improvement. in fact the conditon could only become worse!

it is being said no sect can claim any supremacy even inside temple premises. by this logic, no religion can also claim supremacy inside their places of worship. it automatically means christians can enter and administer mosques, buddhists can dictate how gurudwara should be run etc., this will lead to bitterness, clashes amongst various religions.

how can brahmins allow non brahmins as priests in temples when they do not even allow gods or priests of even rival brahmin sects in temples? this is the nadir of absurdity!!

just because a person is a 'hindu' does that qualify him to claim rights to modify rituals as per his whims & fancies? just because i sell a saree to a women as a shopowner, can i claim 'she is wearing the saree of my shop. so i have right to touch her'! this is outright nonsense !!

Individuality of a sect, that too within the premises of the place of worship,in no way collides with equality, because temples are not govt. places to enforce 'social justice' or 'rationalism'. places of worship were built as a mark of respect to god. so they will be run only according to the agamas of the sect of the god to which reigns in the temple.TEMPLES ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTIES OF ANTI BRAHMINS, NON BRAHMINS OR GOVERNMENTS.

every person has got a right to hate or love any religion within rule of law.there is nothing wrong in that. the bogey of 'brahmins will suffer' or' 'hatred of brahmins will increase' clearly shows ignorance of non brahmins. after all brahmins do not even allow even brahmin gods or priests of rival sects in to temples of their sect beyond a point. it is clear these 'rationalists'are confusing hinduism with other religions. in other religions, god of their religions can enter their places of worship freely. but here only the god of the sect to which the temple belongs, can have supremacy. even brahmin gods of rival sect are restricted!
then why should anti bramins feel jealous or suffer from inferiority complex? why are'rationalists' claiming rights in temples which even gods or brahmins themselves do not have??????

 

[NARAS]

SIR - the dmk/upa cohorts are planning to demolish Lord rama bridge under rameswaran sea. this bridge is said to be over 18 lakh years old. NASA of america have released photos of this bridge as evidence. under pretext of building sethu samudhiram canal, the dmk/upa dispensation is reportedly trying to destroy the bridge. aiakmk chief jayalalitha has condemned the move. a case has also been registered in courts against the demolition. it is important that this bridge which is a national heritage should not be left to the mercy of the karunanidhi & his cohorts.

sir - the discovery of this bridge and the dating of this bridge to almost more than 18 lakh yrs. old, clearly shows that hinduism is a religion which originated more than many, many, lakh yrs.ago and not just 5000 yrs. as 'rationalists' are claiming!!!!!

 

[NARAS]

[email protected]- e mail address of indian president


[email protected] - email address of t.nadu chiefminister
[email protected] e mail address of t.nadu governor
[email protected] e mail address of high court of chennai

sir - members- pls. go to the above links and send a request message to above persons to protect Lord Rama Bridge in rameswaram, which 'rationalists' are hellbent on destroying on the pretext of building sethusamidhiram project. i have already e mailed with my request message. pls. do not ignore this posting.

 

[NARAS]

sir - TEMPLE is like a country. a country belongs to citizens of that country. foreigners can come and visit that country. but they cannot claim equal rights like citizens. like that, any person can visit a temple. but temples should be run only as per the reigning deity of the temple. temples are not govt. property, so govts. cannot interfere in that. temples are private affairs. so anybody has right to say that within temples only the rituals of the sect to the god of the temple should be followed. those who do not like this rule, need not visit temples at all! if you have respect for god, you will automatically have respect for the individuality of the rituals of all sects. what sort of 'rationalism' is it to say ' i believe in god. but not in brahminism!' the trinity- creator brahma, protector vishnu, destroyer siva - are all bramins. the priests in all orthodox temples are brahmins. so it is not hinduism, but hypocrisy to say that 'god up up! brahmins down down!

in a democracy, it is not majority opinion which always matters. but rule of law. to say that non brahmins now have the right to modify laws as per their whims and fancies just because they are in a majority reminds me of a man sixfeet tall saying to man whose height was only 3 feet -'even if i am wrong, i should prevail over you,because i am 3 feet taller than you!!!' (famous quote by mahatma). this is the tyranny of majority over minority. this is fascism. the bottomline of democracy is freedom of speech. trampling over freedom of speech on the pretext of enforcing 'social justice' paves the way for dominance of fascist ideals like 'rationalism' & 'communism'

where is the question of imposing here? it is anti brahmins who are imposing their practices in brahmin temples, and not other way round. has any brahmin asked non brahmin temples like melmaruvathur etc., to modify its practices and be run like orthodox brahmin temples? what is the need to change existing rituals which have been there for centuries? when govts. go for a change in any matter there should be a need. there should also be the guarantee that the new arrangement proposed by the govt. should always be better than the existing arrangement. in this case, there is neither need or guarantee of any improvement. in fact the conditon could only become worse!

it is being said no sect can claim any supremacy even inside temple premises. by this logic, no religion can also claim supremacy inside their places of worship. it automatically means christians can enter and administer mosques, buddhists can dictate how gurudwara should be run etc., this will lead to bitterness, clashes amongst various religions.

how can brahmins allow non brahmins as priests in temples when they do not even allow gods or priests of even rival brahmin sects in temples? this is the nadir of absurdity!!

just because a person is a 'hindu' does that qualify him to claim rights to modify rituals as per his whims & fancies? just because i sell a saree to a women as a shopowner, can i claim 'she is wearing the saree of my shop. so i have right to touch her'! this is outright nonsense !!

Individuality of a sect, that too within the premises of the place of worship,in no way collides with equality, because temples are not govt. places to enforce 'social justice' or 'rationalism'. places of worship were built as a mark of respect to god. so they will be run only according to the agamas of the sect of the god to which reigns in the temple.TEMPLES ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTIES OF ANTI BRAHMINS, NON BRAHMINS OR GOVERNMENTS.

every person has got a right to hate or love any religion within rule of law.there is nothing wrong in that. the bogey of 'brahmins will suffer' or' 'hatred of brahmins will increase' clearly shows ignorance of non brahmins. after all brahmins do not even allow even brahmin gods or priests of rival sects in to temples of their sect beyond a point. it is clear these 'rationalists'are confusing hinduism with other religions. in other religions, god of their religions can enter their places of worship freely. but here only the god of the sect to which the temple belongs, can have supremacy. even brahmin gods of rival sect are restricted!
then why should anti bramins feel jealous or suffer from inferiority complex? why are'rationalists' claiming rights in temples which even gods or brahmins themselves do not have??????

sir - another important phenomenon in brahminism, which is not found in other religions, is that you can become a brahmin only by birth! no person can be converted to a brahmin from other faiths. even 'cho' has said about this a few years back in an anniversary meeting of his journal 'thuglak'
of course, nowadays, a non brahmin women marrying a brahmin is also considered a brahmin. eg.,shrimathi.m.s. subbulakshmi. similarly offsprings born to a non brahmin mother & brahmin father are also considered as brahmins! the absence of conversion is another reason why brahmins do not entertain nonbrahmins into their fold, even in places of worship, though it is not strictly followed in present times.( i have read even in jewish religion there is no scope for conversion)
The vedic religion was called as BRAHMIN religion in those days. of course nowadays, we call it as hinduism. so brahmin religion DID EXIST,though it is presently not called by that name!