ound:sb, i think the social aspects of untouchability - restricting usage of wells, the two-tumbler system etc are the ones which palindrome seems to be talking about... she (oops, i think it is a she?) thinks that theetu is a concept which implicitly suggests a hierarchy based on birth... not bothering to know what are the circumstances under which these are being followed...ss,this piece from pali...sorts of confusing for me.how is 'theetu' fundamentalistic?if you understood can you plz explain?mandaiyae vedichudum pola irukku!!!!
ss,tell me,when does ones society becomes new or old?isn't it old wine in new bottle(khe khe,i know you hate this example
i think m m has been unfairly understood here...all it is about hygeine..the methods deployed was prolly hurting communities...i still remember in our house in teynampet,in front of our house,the 'paal karans'used tie their cows,which used drop their dungs,pee,....etc emanating a wretched stench..i had the guts and go and tell the 'cheri' people,please give bath to cows and also dont allow children to shit in the rods,its un-hygeinex...promptly i was told=get real.
we are so poor,we dont even have a house,food,clothes,latrines...and you expect us to be hygeinic....'vayatha komattindu' warum to even walk on the road for us..but nobody listened,and told me 'muka' has told to have chris like this in every locality so that poor people will get jobs as maidservants=i could not beat the logic of muka.
sb
sb, i think the social aspects of untouchability - restricting usage of wells, the two-tumbler system etc are the ones which palindrome seems to be talking about... she (oops, i think it is a she?) thinks that theetu is a concept which implicitly suggests a hierarchy based on birth... not bothering to know what are the circumstances under which these are being followed...
one can say that god too is a male chauvinist, since he chose labour and child birth to women only, why not make men too capable of this? her logic is also somewhat similar to this...
fundamentalism is when every interpretation of literals in our vedas is held to be the sacred truth... but then, it depends on our understanding as to what the message really is... the vedas do not speak about dress codes too, then how did the specifics come to appear? can we roam about naked? one can reply to the affirmative to this, but how may really practice this?
as i have said in my previous post, there are interpretations to help us integrate the essence of the vedas through our social life...
parasarar, (quoted from the skd) says,
"after menstruation, it is said that, a woman is said to contain the doshas of a chandali on the first day, that of a brahmna hatthi on the second day and that of a rajaki on the third day... the woman must remain secluded and intercourse is prohibited. she becomes clean of doshams only on the fifth day, after bath... he says, that it is good for "prajasamrakshanam'..."
now, one may question what these doshams are and how do they fix upon the woman? on the other hand, did such seers write something on such flimsy grounds that it is subject to being questioned on the drop of a hat? would they have not envisaged this during the latter ages?
or is it something that our minds have not yet fathomed?
so, judging a person as a fundamentalist is simply a way of this society, but let them keep on judging... we have to plod our way...
regarding mm's stance - i think there may be a determined individual/group of people here who take on mm simply for the sake of rebuking him and his ideas...
society is ever-changing, but only with regard to certain aspects... after having advanced to a level, one may find that certain practices as done in olden days, were actually the best practices... society takes the form of the more dominant personality that is evident - in collective individuals... it is materialistic and longing for pleasure now, and society has adapted to meet this demands - probably when it comes to be predominantly dharma based or spiritual based, we may see new light in our scriptures...
old wine? wine itself is a fermented product... the question then, merely, is one of palatability...
,thnx yaar!why shasthras were laid down is very clear... not due to intermingling of societies... but to give a detailed way for the society to achieve their goals... you might want to visit the links given by vv for the vedanta classes... the orator clearly explains what shasthras are and the why of it...
what is the issue about touching? it is a personal space... i wouldnt want anybody touching me unnecessarily, unless i prefer it... so, all this talk about untouchability does not hold water...
logic is but perception... you intercepted mm's post and did not think that he is entitled to his logic... and i do the same here...
And I thought I would get to read more about untouchable money, its estimates and how it would get fixed.....
s s ,s v...you guys are the best...for a pitthhukuli like me 
i cannot change anything just for the heck of a discussion... i also do not argue for the sake of arguing... everything hinges around on that pivotal statement, and it is of utmost importance that we fully comprehend it... else, we would only be frustrated or irritated or see things as repetitive or redundant...
i had given, in an earlier post, some verses from shasthras for "theetu"... i think untouchability is a natural derivative... if i am a vegetarian, naturally my instruction/inclination would be to keep away from non-vegetarians... similarly if am clean, it implies that i keep away from the unclean... it is not rocket science to figure this out!!!
And I thought I would get to read more about untouchable money, its estimates and how it would get fixed.....
