Brahmins the new untouchables of India

[Mritunjaya]

Who in the good lord's name (pick whichever imaginary lord you like) invited you to my house...I was referring to the Smoke House Grill at KM..

Hey, at least Ravan wasn't trying to burn his own wife on a pyre..a BIG UP compared to the rest of the lot..

Still aiming too high. Good to know you worship your asura lord Ravan. No surprise here either. Now, since it is now established you have no substance to offer, buzz off pest.

 

[Dillinger]

Still aiming too high. Good to know you worship your asura lord Ravan. No surprise here ether. No since it is now established you have no substance to offer, buzz off pest.

Ad hominem it is then. Worship what? Sorry, strictly atheist..no worshiping anything for me..

 

[Bang Galore]

Those Rules are written in the scriptures that also wrote on how to build a temple.

Ancient Rishis who were the founders of Hinduism wrote the Agama shastra which is a compilation of various treatises called Prakarana Catustaya but only know reference is to Rishi Adi Samkara.

What really is pathetic is people attempting to pass of ignorance as knowledge. I would rather they just shut up rather than pretend to know something.

Everybody has a choice in life including the SC/ST. The choice is to follow the rules for temple worship and then enter the temple or not to follow the rules for temple worship and not enter the temple. Clearly such simple logic is too much for the ignorant.

SC/ST did convert to buddhism so why the reservation then ? no need to enter the temple right ? Your fantasies of wanting to lord over otherss is just an extension of your hate fueled by ignorance and half knowledge.

Rules written by the same lot keeping out the others. The logic is very clear. No amount of ranting can make up for that. The logic is even more clear today, either follow what the majority wants or take a quick short walk to irrelevance. Those are the new rules. Democracy must be such a pain for some.

 

[malgudi]

Reservation based on caste has far outlived its purpose. If reservation is really needed, then it needs to be done based on financial ability. But no one will touch it, whichever party/politician does so it will be death knell for them.

 

[Bang Galore]

A true brahmin needs to have Self-control, tranquility, uprightness, patience, purity, humility, learning, austerity, wisdom, and faith.

Well...I guess that puts you out of the reckoning.

 

[Mritunjaya]

Rules written by the same lot keeping out the others. The logic is very clear. No amount of ranting can make up for that. The logic is even more clear today, either follow what the majority wants or take a quick short walk to irrelevance. Those are the new rules. Democracy must be such a pain for some.

There are no rules keeping out any Hindu. Only Non Hindus and those who are ashudha (unclean) from temples.

You continue to rant without knowing anything. I suspect it is because you do no wish to know the truth. That would bring down you house of cards. One in which you can continue to demonize brahmins and satisfy some perverse pleasure.

Might is right is a good rule for follow. Especially when enforcing a uniform civil code and ending article 370 and building a Ram Temple in Ayodhya. I totally agree with you. LOL.

Truly rule of majority Hindus must be a pain for some.  

Well...I guess that puts you out of the reckoning.

did you figure me out for a brahmin ? ..........what do you call people who fight to protect dharma and brahmins ? any guesses ?

 

[Bang Galore]

India for the longest time is and was a vegetarian country. Meat eating was an exception rather than the rule. So again all that you said is fiction and not fact.

In fact most Hindu kings were vegetarian too. There would have been exceptions, but the rule was vegetarianism. Meat eating in India became popular after Islamic and Christian invasion. No amount of twisting history to suite an agenda will change hard realities.

What a lot of rubbish. Don't substitute your wannabe history for the real bit. When Asoka converted to Buddhism, he ordered the reduction but not elimination of meat from the royal kitchen, What Muslims or Christians do you want to blame that on? Buddha himself was a non-vegetarian, Mahaveera's teachings were about doing the correct thing & not harming living things, hardly necessary if the people around were a pious bunch of vegetarians. One of the Buddha's & Mahaveera's biggest compaints against brahmins was with animal sacrifices. Read about what the Ashwameda yagna was actually about & the number of animals that needed to be sacrificied before the Horse. Take this trash history peddling elsewhere.

did you figure me out for a brahmin ? ..........what do you call people who fight to protect dharma and brahmins ? any guesses ?

No, I didn't(I have read you long enough, on many different avatars) but I did point out why you could never claim to be one.

There are no rules keeping out any Hindu. Only Non Hindus and those who are ashudha (unclean) from temples.

There were rules but not like you like to pretend. It didn't say the SC's could come to the temple if they did not eat meat, it simply banned their entry because of who they were. This kind of rubbish might work with the people you normally meet, doesn't cut much ice here.

 

[Bang Galore]

Reservation based on caste has far outlived its purpose. If reservation is really needed, then it needs to be done based on financial ability. But no one will touch it, whichever party/politician does so it will be death knell for them.

Reservations for SC, ST's are probably necessary & will be for quite some time. A couple of millenia of discrimination won't change in a hurry. This thread is proof of some attitudes still held. Reservations for OBC's on the other hand are largely baseless(for the majority, valid for a minority) & simply political pandering. If you understand history, you would know that some of the worst violators against the Dalits were land owning OBC's, not Brahmins who were seperated by too many levels socially as to not have much contact.

 

[Mritunjaya]

What a lot of rubbish. Don't substitute your wannane history for the real bit. When Asoka converted fto Buddhism, he ordered the reduction but not elimination of meat from the royal kitchen, What Muslims or Christians do you want to blame that on? Buddha himself was a non-vegetarian, Mahaveera's teachings were about doing the correct thing & not harming living things, hardly necessary if the people around were a pious bunch of vegetarians. One of the Buddha's & Mahaveera's biggest compaints against brahmins was with animal sacrifices. Read about what the Ashwameda yagna was actually about & the number of animals that needed to be sacrificied before the Horse. Take this trash history peddling elsewhere.

There were rules but not like you like to pretend. It didn't say the SC's could come to the temple if they did not eat meat, it simply banned their entry because of who they were. This kind of rubbish might work with the people you normally meet, doesn't cut much ice here.

Rubbish indeed. It is interesting that you should mention Ashoka since he explicitly told his subjects to desist from eating meat and ordered his local officers of various ranks, including governors, to tour their jurisdictions regularly to witness that rules of right conduct were being followed. Most kings in India continued to be vegetarian baring few exceptions. Even when meat was consumed it was hunted e.g. Deer meat or peacock meat.

Ashwameda yagna was a rairity not the rule and even then the horse and other domestic animals were sacrificed and not eaten. The Ashvamedha is intended to secure prosperity for the kingdom and its subjects. It is a bloody sacrifice in which the domestic animals are killed and non-domestic animals are set free. It offers the blood of animals as a substitute for human blood in wars. In any case Ashwameda yagna is strictly forbidden in Kali Yuga. You are the one peddling trash to white wash meat eating.

Buddha was a bikshuk and had to eat anything that was offered including spoilt meat (which eventual caused his death).

SC cannot say people cannot eat meat and enter temple. There is no way to check and ensure that, hence the dilution of hindu beliefs to accommodate ashuda.

 

[Dillinger]

What a lot of rubbish. Don't substitute your wannane history for the real bit. When Asoka converted fto Buddhism, he ordered the reduction but not elimination of meat from the royal kitchen, What Muslims or Christians do you want to blame that on? Buddha himself was a non-vegetarian, Mahaveera's teachings were about doing the correct thing & not harming living things, hardly necessary if the people around were a pious bunch of vegetarians. One of the Buddha's & Mahaveera's biggest compaints against brahmins was with animal sacrifices. Read about what the Ashwameda yagna was actually about & the number of animals that needed to be sacrificied before the Horse. Take this trash history peddling elsewhere.



No, I didn't(I have read you long enough, on many different avatars) but I did point out why you could never claim to be one.



There were rules but not like you like to pretend. It didn't say the SC's could come to the temple if they did not eat meat, it simply banned their entry because of who they were. This kind of rubbish might work with the people you normally meet, doesn't cut much ice here.

Nope only the pious lot, from Ram to Yudhistir, could sacrifice horses and what not and still subscribe to being benign vegetarians..not to mention that if you dig deep enough into the Rig Veda- the hymn of the horse should do just fine- you'd find plenty of sacrifice and meat consumption (well either that or they roasted a horse and then let the meat go to waist)...perhaps the vedic folks were just not hindu enough...

 

[Bang Galore]

It is interesting that you should mention Ashoka since he explicitly told his subjects to desist from eating meat and ordered his local officers of various ranks, including governors, to tour their jurisdictions regularly to witness that rules of right conduct were being followed. Most kings in India continued to be vegetarian baring few exceptions. Even when meat was consumed it was hunted e.g. Deer meat or peacock meat.

Still ate meat as did most others. In any case, the reduction was post-conversion. Why, if no one were eating meat would Ashoka find it necessary to issue such a proclamation?

Ashwameda yagna was a rairity not the rule and even then the horse and other domestic animals were sacrificed and not eaten. The Ashvamedha is intended to secure prosperity for the kingdom and its subjects. It is a bloody sacrifice in which the domestic animals are killed and non-domestic animals are set free. It offers the blood of animals as a substitute for human blood in wars. In any case Ashwameda yagna is strictly forbidden in Kali Yuga. You are the one peddling trash to white wash meat eating.

Still trash peddling. You have now been reduced to arguing that sacrifices where animals were killed without purpose were somewhat better than when done to fill one's stomach. By the way Ashwameda was only one example, not the only one.

Buddha was a bikshuk and had to eat anything that was offered including spoilt meat (which eventual caused his death).

You can't even figure out the absurdity in your post. You first suggest that most people were vegetarians & then come up with the gem that people gave monks left-over meat. Left over from what....?

Btw, Pork was a favourite of the Buddha, not just something he had to eat.

SC cannot say people cannot eat meat and enter temple. There is no way to check and ensure that, hence the dilution of hindu beliefs to accommodate ashuda

SC as in supreme court? That was not the argument . SC(as in Scheduled Castes) were not allowed into temples on account of their birth as SC's, not as by your silly assertions. 

Nope only the pious lot, from Ram to Yudhistir, could sacrifice horses ........

You would be far more interested in what the chief queen had to do with the dead horse........(including constant commentary from the one of the Brahmin priests ......).......

 

[Mritunjaya]

Nope only the pious lot, from Ram to Yudhistir, could sacrifice horses and what not and still subscribe to being benign vegetarians..not to mention that if you dig deep enough into the Rig Veda- the hymn of the horse should do just fine- you'd find plenty of sacrifice and meat consumption (well either that or they roasted a horse and then let the meat go to waist)...perhaps the vedic folks were just not hindu enough...

A yagna was a occasion not a rule. A rare celebration.

Anything offered to the gods were also consumed as prasada. It does not make them habitual meat eaters. For the general rule, vegetarianism was the rule. Non vegetarianism was the exception. Even then, sacrifice was made of the general good of the people and not to satisfy ones lust for meat. 

Still ate meat as it most others. In any case, the reduction was post-conversion. Why, if no one were eating meat would Ashoka find it necessary to issue such a proclaimation?

Who said meat eating did not occur ? there were still asuras and untouchables in the kingdom practicing ashuda practices. Hence the need for the dictact. But it shows that meat eating was the exception practiced by the social outcasts, which is the case all along.

Still trash peddling. You have now been reduced to arguing that sacrifices where animals were killed without purpose were somewhat better than when done to fill one's stomach. By the way Ashwameda was only one example, not the only one.

LOL. You wish. I have never said meat eating never occurred, only that majority of Indians were vegetarians, and that majority of kings were vegetarians. That still stands. In fact Manu Smriti states that 'The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,' that is declared to be a rule made by the gods ; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas.

You can't even figure out the absurdity in your post. You first suggest that most people were vegetarians & then come up with the gem that people gave buddhist monks left-over meat. Left over from what....?
Btw, Pork was a favourite of the Buddha, not just something he had to eat.

LOL. It is you who are making the logical fallacy. I repeat what you have written above, MOST people were vegetarian. Hence why the surprise when some ate meat and give buddha leftover meat as biksha ?

SC as in supreme court? That was not the argument . SC(as in Scheduled Castes) were not allowed into temples on account of their birth as SC's, not as by your silly assertions. 

This has already been mentioned earlier. When hinduism declines people continue to practice traditions without knowing the reason for it. In a closed community everybody knew who the meat eaters and alcohol drinkers were. Without regular bath, it does not take a genius to figure out who to keep out of any place, including a temple.

You would be far more interested in what the queens had to do with the dead horse........

Dillinger would be more interested.

 

[Bang Galore]

A yagna was a occasion not a rule. A rare celebration.

Anything offered to the gods were also consumed as prasada. It does not make them habitual meat eaters. For the general rule, vegetarianism was the rule. Non vegetarianism was the exception. Even then, sacrifice was made of the general good of the people and not to satisfy ones lust for meat.

Excuses...excuses. Most people even today are partial non-vegetarians, most don't eat non vegetarian food 3 times a day.....So in effect, no real change.

Sacrifices were made for someone's good....., the priests didn't compain.

 

[Mritunjaya]

Excuses...excuses. Most people even today are partial non-vegetarians, most don't eat non vegetarian food 3 times a day.....So in effect, no real change.

Sacrifices were made for someone's good....., the priests didn't compain.

No Facts, Facts and more Facts. Animal sacrifice made during yagna and then consumed is not the same as satisfying ones lust for eating dead animals. Read again what manusmirit said about rakshasha.

You can spin your fantasies and extract amusement, but reality is most Dharmic religion practitioners were vegetarians till the invaders came and change the diet habits. 
Here is some direct quotes from the much maligned Manusmriti

5/51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

5/52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

5/53. He who during a hundred years annually offers ashwamedha, and he who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct).

5/54. By subsisting on pure fruit and roots,and by eating food fit for ascetics (in the forest), one does not gain (so great) a reward as by entirely avoiding (the use of) flesh.

 

[Bang Galore]

No Facts, Facts and more Facts. Animal sacrifice made during yagna and then consumed is not the same as satisfying ones lust for eating dead animals. Read again what manusmirit said about rakshasha.

You can spin your fantasies and extract amusement, but reality is most Dharmic religion practitioners were vegetarians till the invaders came and change the diet habits

Now, that would be some spinning fantasy.......Manusmriti eh? Written by & for the common people, was it? You still don't get it, why are there so many pleas to not eat meat if the people were all a bunch of peaceful vegetarians? Brain freeze, eh?