Muslim invasion created Dalits and tribals in India, says RSS

[Indrani]

No wonder why dalits are reverting to the only true religion these days.

Yo, no one is converting to Islam barring a handful. If anything people are leaving Islam in droves given the number of Muslims who are praying to Hindu gods nowadays.

 

[KingMamba]

Well then in broader context in which we are talking about your point is Null & Void-
Since both those erotic arts and caste system existed as per your understanding before there was a religion called Islam-

 

[abjktu]

Never heard of such a thing. Any links ?

New one...

 

[Iggy]

@KingMamba what was the films nameof the gif you posted earlier?

 

[Indrani]

Well then in broader context in which we are talking about your point is Null & Void-
Since both those erotic arts and caste system existed as per your understanding before there was a religion called Islam-

Caste system was not birth based and it was not rigid. People were marrying across castes. There was no untouchability. Erotic arts are just that erotic arts. There were a section of population who experimented with religions, sexuality, etc. etc. They were just that and not slaves or sign of any exploitation. You can visit temple after temple in India and abroad and see village and city life of thousands of years depicted on the walls of those temples. There is no instance of cruelty or slavery in any of those.

So untouchability was not present back then.

 

[Levina]

maybe u should move to usa, sweden, norway, new zealand etc..open ur eyes.



it's you. that id has survived because it has a woman's name. both you and i know it.

@levina

You bet!!
she is a he.

Exactly. The one who had the knowledge was the Brahmins. Not the other way around.

The point of discussion is how and when the system got corrupted. There are plenty of examples in Kerala (since it was untouched by violent islamic invasion) where dalits became as knowledgeable as the Brahmins and rejected the supremacy of the Namboodris. They started their own temple and had their own priests.

In the North, the Bhumiars did it too.



The division of power was well established in Hinduism.

1. The Brahmins got to have knowledge, but was devoid of land, wealth and arms.
2. The kshatriyas got to have arms, but was denied knowledge outside his domain, land and wealth.
3. The Vaishya got to have wealth, but was denied knowledge outside his domain, land and arms.
4. The Shdra got to have land and cows, but was denied denied knowledge outside his domain, arms and wealth.

Oh man!!
When you've so much knowledge about Hinduism then how is it that you fail to assimilate its essence??

 

[abjktu]

[

Huh???

may be that ruins your high caste image..But its the need of the hour for Kerala.we are so much fed up with these petty caste religious bullshit..we should think beyond caste,religion and move united....Manvan is a rabid Malayali hater,who desperately trying to create divisions between Malayalis...

 

[scorpionx]

I am always honest.

I have no doubt about it. In fact honesty and idiocy mixed bigotry do not contradict each other always. So no disagreement here.

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

Caste system was not birth based and it was not rigid. People were marrying across castes. There was no untouchability. Erotic arts are just that erotic arts. There were a section of population who experimented with religions, sexuality, etc. etc. They were just that and not slaves or sign of any exploitation. You can visit temple after temple in India and abroad and see village and city life of thousands of years depicted on the walls of those temples. There is no instance of cruelty or slavery in any of those.

So untouchability was not present back then.

The outcastes, the avarṇa and Maleecha were untouchables and were not part of normal society.

Out caste's were of two type, One who was temporarily thrown out of their caste due to some sin. E.g. eating beef by mistake or travelling overseas. They were givng an oppertunity to come back into society by dong some recommended prayashchit. Prayashchit for a brahmin travelling overseas were pretty strict and had to be observed for 3 years before you can accepted back into the caste.

Others more serious ones like incest were made permanent outcasts and lived outside society and were untouchables. Association with them was considered to bring bad luck and they were avoided at all cost.

Untouchability for out castes did exist, but for Avarna's like tribals and Maleechas were need based.

 

[gubbi]

This is such a bullshit. Trying to transpose desert stories on to Indian landscape. There were saints from all castes. India experimented with atheism too and Buddhism co-existed with Hinduism all through until the arrival of Islam. So what fear of Gods to hold back whom? This society which was so multi layered with so many power structures was so gullible you mean?

What desert stories are you referring to?
Btw, I said 'fear of wrath of the Gods' not fear of Gods. See the difference? Btw, I never denied existence of 'saints' from all castes and walks of life then. So what was your question here?
There were so many outrageous social practices back then, and the much touted multi layered society you so fondly speak of was still rigidly classified into the caste system and people were persecuted for their 'low birth', no? So doesnt that speak of their gullibility

Caste system was not birth based and it was not rigid. People were marrying across castes. There was no untouchability. Erotic arts are just that erotic arts. There were a section of population who experimented with religions, sexuality, etc. etc. They were just that and not slaves or sign of any exploitation. You can visit temple after temple in India and abroad and see village and city life of thousands of years depicted on the walls of those temples. There is no instance of cruelty or slavery in any of those.
So untouchability was not present back then.

That was true in the earlier periods. I dont know the exact time frame when the society became rigid regarding the caste system, but it did! Caste, like today, was determined by birth and even today many people still look at caste when marrying. Deny this.
If untouchability was not present, pray what then all these saints and social reformers of the priod were talking about?

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

I have no doubt about it. In fact honesty and idiocy mixed bigotry do not contradict each other always. So no disagreement here.

Both are mutually exclusive. Bigotry is the denial of facts and truths. What a strange statement to make.

 

[scorpionx]

Both are mutually exclusive. Bigotry is the denial of facts and truths. What a strange statement to make.

Not always. A bigot does not necessarily has to be dishonest about his/her own understandings about an event or subject matter.

 

[gubbi]

LOL....chickening out so soon ? Where is your proof ? ......Classic gurukul were the kalari where everybody was taught. Including ezahavas and Christians. Now where is your proof ?

You know nothing, Jon Snow!

So ? What is the "ideal" duration as per you ?

.... what is the difference ?

Dont you suppose a thousand years would bring about profound changes in a society? ANd if you are asking me about differences between a Sanskrit scholar and poet-saint-philosophers, then you are the wrong person to discuss such an issue.

 

[JonAsad]

Caste system was not birth based and it was not rigid. People were marrying across castes. There was no untouchability. Erotic arts are just that erotic arts. There were a section of population who experimented with religions, sexuality, etc. etc. They were just that and not slaves or sign of any exploitation. You can visit temple after temple in India and abroad and see village and city life of thousands of years depicted on the walls of those temples. There is no instance of cruelty or slavery in any of those.

So untouchability was not present back then.

So tell me again how come Muslims are to be blamed for the caste system which was in existence from times of Ramayan and before?-

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

Not always. A bigot does not necessarily has to be dishonest about his/her own understandings about an event or subject matter.

A bigot is rooted in prejudice that is irrational. Its not based on reason or facts.

If the distrust is based on facts and history, then its not bigotry.