Hinduism, backdrop to the caste system

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"explored"? huh?
anyway tibet was an island unto itself until it was invaded. It may not have been the best society, but it was up there. Regardless of that, it was evolving its own culture and religous pratices and serves as a great model to study because it was isloated from the rest of the world for so long.

Yes explored. The peasants had absolutely no rights, they had to pay taxes all the time, they had to do all the dirty and heavy job, almost all the land was owned by the clergy and army people, young Tibetan boys were forcefully taken from their families to train as monks and plenty of times were used as sex slaves...

The list goes on and it is not a pretty one I'd say.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Just as a matter of curiosity. Would you consider yourself to be more or less intelligent on the whole than the JWs you have known.

its such a silly question, how do you measure intelligence,

ill tell you this, there was a man in my congregation, Gavin MacNnay, who had a first class honours degree in mathematics, wrote his dissertation on number theory, could not pass his ordinary English exam, get the point? what is more its just so unimportant, was it not Steinbeck in his famous book, of mice and men who stated, 'Guy don't need no sense to be a nice fella', it has always stuck with me that quotation, you should think about it too.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its such a silly question, how do you measure intelligence, what is more its just so unimportant, was it not Steinbeck in his famous book, of mice and men, 'Guy don't need no sense to be a nice fella', it has always stuck with me that quotation, you should think about it too.

One can only hope that that means that most are more intelligent than you and you're just too embarrassed to say.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
One can only hope that that means that most are more intelligent than you and you're just too embarrassed to say.

yes many are more intelligent but they are nowhere near as good looking 😉 gotta go

Originally posted by black beetle
Hinduism is a tangled forest, and the approach of the Brahmins differs according to their personal understanding of the vedas. Methinks the fundamentalist Hindus of specific rural areas are as much living in the past as the fundamentalist Muslims who respect Sharia and the fundamentalist Christians who refuse to back up the Africans with condoms.

No doubt. I stumbled onto a Hindu site recently where Hindus were arguing over this very question—with as much fervor as Christians on here argue over who are the “true Christians™”, only in this case over who are the “true Hindus™”.

It does seem as if the caste system was introduced by the Indo-Aryans; and that raises the question of whether the phrase “pre-Vedic Hinduism” carries any real meaning. [But, then again, the same thing question could be asked for “post-Vedic Hinduism”. ] That is, to what extent is Varna a social construct introduced into Hinduism at an early stage, as opposed to one that originated with Hinduism? And since Hinduism, broadly construed, has moved beyond Vedism, why assume that it cannot (and, in many cases, has not) move beyond Varna?

In the end, I have to conclude that Varna is not an essential feature of Hinduism, broadly construed—at least not any more—although it may still be important to certain sectarian Hindus.

Originally posted by vistesd
No doubt. I stumbled onto a Hindu site recently where Hindus were arguing over this very question—with as much fervor as Christians on here argue over who are the “true Christians™”, only in this case over who are the “true Hindus™”.

It does seem as if the caste system was introduced by the Indo-Aryans; and that raises the question of whether the phr ...[text shortened]... construed—at least not any more—although it may still be important to certain sectarian Hindus.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)#The_four_varnas

The system of four varnas is also mentioned in Bhagavad-Gita 4.13:

"The four orders of society were created by Me [Krishna] classifying them according to the mode of Prakrti [nature] predominant in each and apportioning corresponding duties to them; though the author of this creation, know Me, the immortal Lord, to be a non-doer."

I've gathered that references to "castes" in Hindu scriptures are speaking of divisions based on an individuals "nature" rather than "bloodline". An example might be that an aggressive individual is better suited to be a soldier than a passive individual. So it is really about finding suitable roles for given "temperaments and capacities" as described below.

From http://www.vedanta.com/vital.php

Q - Does Vedanta accept the Indian caste system or does it reject it as incompatible with religious ideals?

A - Caste, as described in the Gita, is concerned with the division of work according to a man's temperament and capacity. In this sense, caste will always exist not only in India but everywhere in the world. There will always be spiritual leaders and teachers, politicians and soldiers, traders and artisans, and laborers.

Originally posted by vistesd
No doubt. I stumbled onto a Hindu site recently where Hindus were arguing over this very question—with as much fervor as Christians on here argue over who are the “true Christians™”, only in this case over who are the “true Hindus™”.

It does seem as if the caste system was introduced by the Indo-Aryans; and that raises the question of whether the phr ...[text shortened]... construed—at least not any more—although it may still be important to certain sectarian Hindus.

Of course, my dear vistesd😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
im allowed to think, but i thought i was a borg, part of the collective subconscious, with no will or desire of my own, no individuality, the same as everyone else, assimilated and assimilating others.

Just say 'I dont want to answer' or dont reply.
Life is a paradox. on the one hand you are assimlilated into the collective unconciousness,etc.(if thats what you're saying), on the other hand you are totally unique, as is evreyother thing that exists. pretty cool ,huh?

Originally posted by adam warlock
Yes explored. The peasants had absolutely no rights, they had to pay taxes all the time, they had to do all the dirty and heavy job, almost all the land was owned by the clergy and army people, young Tibetan boys were forcefully taken from their families to train as monks and plenty of times were used as sex slaves...

The list goes on and it is not a pretty one I'd say.

Have you ever met a tibetan?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Just say 'I dont want to answer' or dont reply.
Life is a paradox. on the one hand you are assimlilated into the collective unconciousness,etc.(if thats what you're saying), on the other hand you are totally unique, as is evreyother thing that exists. pretty cool ,huh?

never assume, because a man has no eyes, he cannot see 😉

Originally posted by adam warlock
Tibet before the Chinese invasion was a very stratified and unjust society that explored the peasants in ways I'm sure you can't even imagine.

Cultural annihilation is so much more liberating 🙂

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Cultural annihilation is so much more liberating 🙂

That's not what I said is it?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Have you ever met a tibetan?

Not in person. But do you dispute anything that I've said in that post?

Originally posted by adam warlock
That's not what I said is it?

It follows from your uncritical endorsement of the State line on Tibet.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It follows from your uncritical endorsement of the State line on Tibet.

It does? How so!? What kind of logic are you using?
I'm intrigued because I've used the word invasion to describe China's action in Tibet.

What would be critical of the State line in Tibet: to endorse the actual enslavement of the serfs?