1."....not study,not learning is the cause of Brahmin status.Conduct is the basis,there is no doubt about it".-Yudhishtira's reply to Yaksha- Mahabharata III.312.106 2.If one's birth were to decide one's caste,then all should be Brahmins because all human beings have one father-Prajapati(God-the Creator) 3. He in whom good conduct is manifest, is a Brahmin and in whom this is absent is a Shudra.Mahabharata III.180.27
RE:Real tenets of Brahminism is this
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 07, 2007 12:22 AM Permalink
Anand, this works. Good conduct means Brahmin and bad conduct implies Shudra. However, not all agree on an individual, whether he is good or bad. Different people have different opinions. So deciding who is a brahmin or a who is a shudra is a personal thing and is not absolute. Is this line of thinking ok? or am I missing something?
So it is almost like when we say somebody is a brahmin we think that he is good. However, the word brahmin and shudra now have acquired a whole different meaning in practice, so maybe it is better to drop those words and just use the usual good, enlightened, learned kind of words to describe whom we think of as brahmin, as I don't think the word brahmin means the same anymore, as does shudra.
RE:Real tenets of Brahminism is this
by Mrigendra Shukla on Jun 07, 2007 02:33 PM Permalink
God Rama himself said in Ramayan that in Kaliyuga the cast system would dissappear. The Shudra will give preaching in the temple & Brahmins would clean toilets. Shudra with know knowledge of Vedic System of life would try to proof themselves right... & by this way humanity would decay...............lead to growth of irreligious thing like terrorism & lootingggggg........which has started.......
RE:Real tenets of Brahminism is this
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 07, 2007 03:59 PM Permalink
Just because Rama says the disappearance of caste system is equivalent to decay in humanity, I personally won't change my opinion that caste system is bad.
I think the plight of women and the vast majority of masses has been improving since the so called treta yuga. Things were better for more people in Mahabharatha which happened later than Ramayana. A man like Karna being accepted as a king in Rama's period would have been a pipe dream, the less said about women the better.
As for looting, I think there was more looting earlier during Rama's period and earlier king's period than now. With the vast majority paying for the comfort of the few. Things are now a lot better. Irreligious feeling also doesn't equate to being bad, as long as we are good to each other.
RE:Real tenets of Brahminism is this
by Anand Iyer on Jun 07, 2007 04:36 PM Permalink
"Caste" is not based on qualities.Caste is bith-based. "Class" is determined by qualities. "Class" in Gita beacme "Caste' under Manu. Lomaharasha and his son Sootha Maharishi belonged to the so-called lower caste(in Manu terms) but they (by virtue of their knowledge) were acccepted as Chairpersons of assembly of rishis.(See Mahabharata). Thus, origibnally, it was "class"-Intellectual/Rulers/Traders/Labour. Then, Manu the fake made it "caste". Let us cast way caste.
RE:Real tenets of Brahminism is this
by Raman on Jun 12, 2007 10:49 PM Permalink
No proof that Rama was god,there might have been a man named Rama,but he was no GOD....allmythologies are fantasies,including Bible and Quran..
