• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • 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.

Money Looted Estimates

  • Thread starter Thread starter malgova.mango
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seshadri Subramaniam said:
palindrome,

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 am not worried about any thing that may seem negative, for again, negativity is but a relative perception and i cannot force anyone to change it...
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!!!
Click to expand...

sesh,

no one change anything for the heck of anything...

neither do i argue for the sake of arguing...but i tend to apologize using that sentence to allow for other things to happen...not sure if you are, but from the usage itself if i may say something, then i think that if you are the kind of a person that uses other people's words in private on an open domain, then i hv nothing to say further to ppl of those likes....

no one needs rocket science or comparisions or analogies with uniforms or creationism examples...if you wanna follow, then follow..that's it..if others want it out, then they too are right...and am inclined to go by the majority..that's all.....

as regards repetitiveness, well truly those logic, pereception thigies make you as repetitive as me or anyone else here.....with due apologies to sridhar vasudevan for the unrelated posts, sesh - if you wanna discuss this furhter, lets take it to a new thread..though i have nothing more to say on this topic...we'll only be doing the circus circles....thanks.
 
pali!

any management is about - people, process and procedures... to achieve its objectives.

ours path is also like a big organization.

to meddle with all those process means, one is killing the objectives.
 
palindrome said:
not sure if you are, but from the usage itself if i may say something, then i think that if you are the kind of a person that uses other people's words in private on an open domain, then i hv nothing to say further to ppl of those likes....
Click to expand...
could not make out what you were trying to convey here...! can you pls clarify? is it something personal which i have used for manipulating to get an advantageous position on any discussion...??
 
malgova.mango said:
pali!

any management is about - people, process and procedures... to achieve its objectives.

ours path is also like a big organization.

to meddle with all those process means, one is killing the objectives.
Click to expand...

a mutt represents the likeness of a organized-religion institution..

it gets established based on certain interpretations...

its followers cannot change ofcourse..for them its anathema...it no diff from a christian who has to believe in creationism to be a christian.

yes, your path is also like a big organization...where the organization matters, not the path.
 
frankly , i 've no relation with any mutt.

if you said , that there is some wrong interpretation - then back it up. simple
i've given pointers to nullify your claims that there is mis-interpretations.
Shruti- Smriti and Puranams all are our scriptures. all are tightly packed and we have communicated and transmitted over time with what's said in shrutis effectively exercising strenous and rigourous methods .

QED : THERE IS NO WRONG OR MIS-INTERPRETATIONS IN SMRITI OR PURANAS.

without showing evidence , if you repeat there is some mis-interpretation .. sorry you are ridiculing the effort of our elders without any basis.
 
re

malgova.mango said:
frankly , i 've no relation with any mutt.

if you said , that there is some wrong interpretation - then back it up. simple
i've given pointers to nullify your claims that there is mis-interpretations.
Shruti- Smriti and Puranams all are our scriptures. all are tightly packed and we have communicated and transmitted over time with what's said in shrutis effectively exercising strenous and rigourous methods .

QED : THERE IS NO WRONG OR MIS-INTERPRETATIONS IN SMRITI OR PURANAS.

without showing evidence , if you repeat there is some mis-interpretation .. sorry you are ridiculing the effort of our elders without any basis.
Click to expand...

mm

i think i am the culprit:( who is writing about various mutts like a 'mutt'!as i conseider them as pillars of just not india but bhu-loka as well as other lokas.i wish i knew to be diplomatic in not bringing in various religious personalities.

i think,pali likes to be free of any definition of a higher authority=maybe i am infering wrongly,but somehow the posts reminds me of happy hindu,who was excellent in her articulation..sigh!

anyway,did you seriously think we can start axe-party to serve brahmins,so far only one thondan in the forum,how about you ?then maybe someone will point fingers at us for money estimates and loots!!!:suspicious:

sb:)
 
malgova.mango said:
frankly , i 've no relation with any mutt.

if you said , that there is some wrong interpretation - then back it up. simple
i've given pointers to nullify your claims that there is mis-interpretations.
Shruti- Smriti and Puranams all are our scriptures. all are tightly packed and we have communicated and transmitted over time with what's said in shrutis effectively exercising strenous and rigourous methods .

QED : THERE IS NO WRONG OR MIS-INTERPRETATIONS IN SMRITI OR PURANAS.

without showing evidence , if you repeat there is some mis-interpretation .. sorry you are ridiculing the effort of our elders without any basis.
Click to expand...

i intend to blog mm...not here..but will send you the hyper...you will see whatever you want to see there...it will take some time to put it all together...
 
Seshadri>>>>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...


Palindrome responds>>>i have nothing to say about the idea of perception being used to justify everything...to me it is as repetitive as me or anyone else here..i am tired of this sentence "logic is perception"..please try telling that to a logician..-

Lets use our conscience here..

No one wants others to intrude our personal space. Its a natural phenomenon, and its a psyche of every human beings and even animals have that same trait of 'Personal Boundary'.

Having said that, if we are denying that personal space to some one, just because of his birth identity, then its a serious moral issue, cos God has created us all as a single human species..not as dog man, monkey man etc etc.. And hence, each man is entitled to have his basic human dignity.

Vegetarianism as an ideology/tool for spirituality is perfectly all right, as long as its not intentionally identified to along with egalitariansim and social identity.

One may hesitate to let it a scavenger inside the kitchen, just because he is un-hygenic, its fine.. But if we dont allow a 'clean hygenic scavengers son', inside the kitchen for various mindsets, then its an immoral issue.

In nutshell, if we some acts based upon his birth identity, then, we are not respecting God..We find humans in God right!! God himself is us and within us. Thats the core theme of Hindu Philosophy right!!

So, lets use our conscience in defining it, rather than arguing it out.
 
sapr333 said:
Seshadri>>>>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...


Palindrome responds>>>i have nothing to say about the idea of perception being used to justify everything...to me it is as repetitive as me or anyone else here..i am tired of this sentence "logic is perception"..please try telling that to a logician..-

Lets use our conscience here..

No one wants others to intrude our personal space. Its a natural phenomenon, and its a psyche of every human beings and even animals have that same trait of 'Personal Boundary'.

Having said that, if we are denying that personal space to some one, just because of his birth identity, then its a serious moral issue, cos God has created us all as a single human species..not as dog man, monkey man etc etc.. And hence, each man is entitled to have his basic human dignity.

Vegetarianism as an ideology/tool for spirituality is perfectly all right, as long as its not intentionally identified to along with egalitariansim and social identity.

One may hesitate to let it a scavenger inside the kitchen, just because he is un-hygenic, its fine.. But if we dont allow a 'clean hygenic scavengers son', inside the kitchen for various mindsets, then its an immoral issue.

In nutshell, if we some acts based upon his birth identity, then, we are not respecting God..We find humans in God right!! God himself is us and within us. Thats the core theme of Hindu Philosophy right!!

So, lets use our conscience in defining it, rather than arguing it out.
Click to expand...
SAP R3 33 (Age?),

Point well taken... but basic human dignity is limited to the social surroundings... a person cannot put his hand inside my pocket on the pretense of equality....

so much so that, i say that as long as one's behaviour is socially acceptable...(while mingling with society), one need not be inquisitive about his personal dogmas...

"In nutshell, if we some acts based upon his birth identity, then, we are not respecting God..We find humans in God right!! God himself is us and within us. Thats the core theme of Hindu Philosophy right!!"

Absolutely, birth is not a criteria at all for identifying the status of a person; it is one's thoughts and actions that determine one's nature...

But am excluding God from this statement.... this holds good even with or without the concept of God...
 
Seshadri Subramaniam said:
SAP R3 33 (Age?),

>>>>>Point well taken... but basic human dignity is limited to the social surroundings... a person cannot put his hand inside my pocket on the pretense of equality....

The point here is, if you dont allow any one including your wife and children to put hands inside your pocket,then I buy your point. As some one said, the libery of your freedom is up to another persons nose tip.. The jist is, lets work as per our conscience, and lets evaluate ourselves, how our actions are true.. No law can bind this.. No law could, ban emotional untouchablity.. This stituation is similar to debauchery...
.. Only conscience and our good moral thinking can answer to this.


"In nutshell, if we some acts based upon his birth identity, then, we are not respecting God..We find humans in God right!! God himself is us and within us. Thats the core theme of Hindu Philosophy right!!"

Absolutely, birth is not a criteria at all for identifying the status of a person; it is one's thoughts and actions that determine one's nature...

But am excluding God from this statement.... this holds good even with or without the concept of God...
Click to expand...

Without God as an ultimate reference for 'Absolute Good, we can also be just like animals, have jungle law, and prove each one as right on their own way..
 
Seshadri, I have a bit long debates with PALINDROME in another thread "why im not a hindu, book analysis"".. I also enjoyed the meaningful debate which Palindrome has presented.. but still we have a bit of confusion, about scriptures and Vedas..

Could you please browse through the last 50 posts there, and share your outlook on this... Thanks in advance..
 
Seshadri Subramaniam said:
SAP R3 33 (Age?),

Absolutely, birth is not a criteria at all for identifying the status of a person; it is one's thoughts and actions that determine one's nature...
..
Click to expand...

I can go one step further (keeping in mind with the untouchablity subject we'r talkin bt.. Even a mentally retarded, who dont have an action and thought process could be respected and regarded great.. Provided if we see him as a human being and see god in himself.. We dont need to expect talents from him... All we need to do is, accept he too is a human, a reflection of God..

The status what we feel great, may not be the same, what God's idea of status..
 
re

I have a basic question about Karma..(Lets keep aside for a while about our faith and belief)..

If Karma is all about carrying past our good/bad deeds (guna), then let me apply the logic of 'First Cause".. What Karmic effect the first soul had?
Click to expand...


there is no such thing as first soul;this is rudimentary in hinduism;aadium illa anthammum illai;


ie, the first soul must have been a good true soul (cos there was no bad past before, for that soul), possibly,it would be a full reflection of Brahma, as pure soul!! If so, then there is no chance for that good sould to acquite bad karma from day one, as its already been a pure soul and its already a Brahman..

Im seriously been looking out an answer to this?
Click to expand...
from time immemorial its 'brahman'=conscoiusness exists.as nirgunam.when'sagunam' takes place then starts the meter.

sb:typing:
 
Sapr,

A few things (to end my conversation on this thread):

I was raised for most part of my life by my father's mum, an orthodox lady, who on many days prayed in wet clothes. As a kid, i too wud imitate her and wud dash off at times from in-between prayers to play with neighbourhood kids in wet clothes (nobody put any restrictions on that or anything). Till date, my spouse and i tend to go straight from the bath to the prayer.. you might consider all of this as untouchability or theetu of sorts.

However, this is about our personal space. We firmly do not beleive in differentiating b/w men.

Back home, in every place we stayed, my parents ensured the maids and their kids maintained personal hygiene. They had to bathe with dettol water in an closed enclosure in the backyard before entering the house, keep their nails cut and clean, had to wash hands with soap after each visit to the toilet, etc (same rules applied to us as well). And i spent many evenings playing with the maids' kids who joined the other kids too. Till date i do not know the castes of all those kids i played with.

The question was only with hygiene and it was handled well.

Here in this thread, you will find ppl who will justify untouchability for various reasons. They will use all sorts of examples, etc..most part of which will appear as disconnected to others but analogous to them, in their desire to justify a situation of social-organization, that appears as dharma or a religiously ordained thing to them.

Please be informed that untouchability is not sanctioned in the vedic texts. It is mentioned nowhere there. The rig vedic times were possibly akin to primitive farm life. The atharva-veda 3.4.2 (tvam vishvo vrnatam...pradisha: pancha devi:..ugro vi bhaja vasuni) talks of a king being designated or elected (pradishati = elect(ed) / declared / designated) probably from a class of warriors...there is no inclination of any heredity kingship in any of the vedic texts.

However, things became designated as heredity in the period of puranas and dharmasutras that came after the vedic period; and we currently have ppl that (falsely) claim to be descended as kshatriyas from the vedic period; akin to the brahmins who claim to have originated from the vedic period..

There are very many reasons for the disconnet b/w vedic hindusim and puranic hindusim. We shall not go into the reasons. But when you wish to critically evaluate anything, please take the whole pic into consideration. Whatever was the social organization came about due to the need for better administration, to accomodate various ppl.

The untouchables were basically workers on whose labour a kingdom was dependent upon. They were important and not taxable. The brahmins were asked not to approach these people for bhiksha since the state was not taxing them either. Instead a brahmin bikshuk went to the households of the merchants and other ppl. Thus came the idea that a brahmin needed to "treat" someone as an untouchable or not go near someone. There is no "religious" sanction as such for untouchability of the dharma (or dharma sutra) kind. Those dharma sutras are merely law books like a constitution needed to run a kingdom or confederation of tribes. There were diff law books in diff periods of time followed by diff ppl. Everyone did not have a class that was exempt from shulka or bali (tax). The class of untouchables varied under different kings. A defeated warrior group cud also be made into a class of untouchables. This social structure was essentially not religious in nature.

The great savant saint Sri Ramanuja tried to convey this by leaning on the shoulders of dhanurdaasa. Yet, some people, mired as they are, in their great desire to be religious to the core, failed to understand the synchronicity. Whatever ppl follow at home, like not touching anyone during prayer are what is done in the desire to see themselves as clean when they present themselves to god and followed so that one does not allow themselves to be distracted from the prayer. It is not to differentiate against anyone at all.

If you really wish to judge, then please judge the individuals here. Not the community. The brahmin community is essentially a progressive one. It is true that hindusim owes a lot to this class of ppl, for being what they are.

There are very many of them living their life quietly as orthodox brahmins or as regular ppl, not making a mess by justifying or being verbose abt these things. The ones that speak here are (to me) the pseudo-orthodox ones, who are a very small micro-minority within the brahmin communites and do not represent the larger brahmanical communites. So, please judge them (if you so wish to) as individuals alone.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
i don't know anything personal - i came to know about the web-site and some of his article gave very good insights..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top