• CONTEST ALERT - Experience the power of DDR5 memory with Kingston Click for details

*** Science Or God? ***

Science or God?


  • Total voters
    516

karnivore

in your face..
OK, I have finally finished reading the rest of that post. O my goodness.

I feel like...
suicide_karnivore.gif
 

mediator

Technomancer
^Yes u feel like trolling....


Seems you completely chicked out of the topic between me and amitash. But neways,



karnivore said:
Here is Adi Sankaracharya’s quote once again:

“There is indeed room (a raison d'etre) for Smritis like the Manusmriti, which give information about matters connected with the whole body of religious duty, characterised by injunction and comprising the agnihotra and similar performances. They tell us at what time and with what rites the members of the different castes are to be initiated; how the Veda has to be studied; in what way the cessation of study has to take place; how marriage has to be performed, and so on. They further lay down the manifold religious duties, beneficial to man, of the four castes and asramas.” He then goes on to explain why Kapila-smriti and such other similar texts or smritis are to be rejected. “The Kapila Smriti, on the other hand, and similar books are not concerned with things to be done, but were composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final release. If then no room were left for them in that connection also, they would be altogether purposeless; and hence we must explain the Vedanta texts in such a manner as not to bring them into conflict with the Smritis mentioned.”(The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.)
1) I know u r frustrated a lot but learn to quote the source. And it better be not "sacred-texts.com"
2) You seem to have highlighted the first part. Ofcourse the good part can also always be taken into consideration as highlighted by me
3) FYI, Manusmriti was most relevant in "satyuga" and as we know what we have today is nothing but distortions as I already stated. "Parashara smriti" was the one that was compiled for kaliyuga. But again these are not supreme scriptures.


CHATUSHPATSKALO DHARMAHA SATYAM CHAIVA KRITE YUGE ||
NA ADHARMENAAGAMAHA KASHCHINA MANUSHYANPRATI VARTATE ||

Meaning: All the four legs of Dharma were present during the Krita Yuga. Truth always prevaled at that time. No human acted unrighteous against anyone.
http://www.urday.in/manusmriti.htm



KRITE TU MANAVO DHARMASTRETAYAAM GAUTAMO SMRITAH ||
DWAPARE SHANKHALIKHITAA KALAU PARASHARAH SMRITAH ||

Meaning- Manu Smriti was most relevant in Satya Yuga. In Treta, Smriti created by Gautam had most relevance whereas in Dwapar, Shankh's Smriti was mostly recognized. But in Kali Yuga, it is Parashar Smriti that by and large shows the way to the ignorant people.

Parashar Smriti endorses all those ideologies of human life which are capable of improving the life of common people in the present fourth age. Paradoxes are the main feature of human life in Kali Yuga irrespective of region, culture and society.

http://www.urday.in/parashar.htm




karnivore said:
Any Smriti that contradicts Sruti, is to be disregarded, while, if there is no contradiction, then Smriti is to be considered as authoritative (Mimamsa Sutra I.3.3). Manusmriti, doesn’t contradict the Vedas. In fact, it goes on to assert the authority of Vedas, and, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable text. This is attested, without any ambiguity, by Sankaracharya. “…that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhana.” (pg 295)
karnivore said:
texts of manusmriti as most racist, casteist and sexist
karnivore said:
Manusmriti can be all of that – and so it is – and yet not contradict the Vedas. In fact, what Manu does is, give his midas touch to everything, that the Vedas are silent of. Silence is neither confirmation nor contradiction. Manu was a clever dick, more clever than your favourite author.
U missed the start of my previous post itself...

"The wife and husband, being the equal halves of one substance, are equal in every respect; therefore both should join and take equal parts in all work, religious and secular "
(RV Book 5, hymn 61. verse 8 )

That I to all the people may address this salutary speech, To priest and nobleman, Sudra and Arya, to one of our own kin and to the stranger. Dear may I be to Gods and guerdon-giver. Fulfilled be this my hope: be that my portion! (Yajur-Veda Ch.26 - V2)

The truth of the 4 varnas working together for the society is again given in the previous post of mine which u seem to have missed.

And u think it doesn't contradict Vedas? U seem to enjoyin running naked everywhere now.

Here's more despair for you => http://www.hvk.org/articles/0506/4.html

article said:
The "Manu Smriti" or the "Yagyavalkya Smriti" has no connection with Adi Manu or the Sage Yagyavalkya. The "Smritis" were written during the reign of Pushyamitra about 2200 years ago. There is no reference of such Smritis in the Mahabharata.

There are two portions in the Smritis - one is 'Yama' and the other is 'Niyama'. 'Yama' consists of eternal values while the 'Niyamas' were the periodic governing laws or codes of conduct meant for running the affairs of the state of the then kings. There are more than three hundred Smritis. They have little to do with the eternal values of Dharma. These have been responsible for gross discrimination that is alien to our concept of 'Ekaatmataa' (Ekaatm Bhaava/Integralism) that is expounded in our ancient scriptures - the Shrutis (the four Vedas - the eternal revealed scriptures) and the Upanishads.





karnivore said:
Here’s Vivekanada’s quote:

“We, therefore, as true children of Manu, must obey his commands and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us.” (The Complete Works of Vivekanda, Vol. 3)
Again generalising on the basis of one statement? Summer heat, frustration and desperation must really be takin a toll on ur fragile brain.

You did not source the quote. But here it is and read it all => http://www.vivekananda.net/Lectures/LecturesColomboAlmora/13.html


vivekananda said:
Several dangers are in the way, and one is that of the extreme conception that we are the people in the world. With all my love for India, and with all my patriotism and veneration for the ancients, I cannot but think that we have to learn many things from other nations. We must be always ready to sit at the feet of all, for, mark you, every one can teach us great lessons. Says our great law-giver, Manu: "Receive some good knowledge even from the low-born, and even from the man of lowest birth learn by service the road to heaven." We, therefore, as true children of Manu, must obey his commands and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us. At the same time we must not forget that we have also to teach a great lesson to the world. We cannot do without the world outside India; it was our foolishness that we thought we could, and we have paid the penalty by about a thousand years of slavery. That we did not go out to compare things with other nations, did not mark the workings that have been all around us, has been the one great cause of this degradation of the Indian mind. We have paid the penalty; let us do it no more. All such foolish ideas that Indians must not go out of India are childish.
1) Vivek Ananda is addressing something.
2) Understand what that something is.
3) In between his speech he says "everyone can teach us great lessons"
4) He points to manu, the law giver with the statement as in second bold.
5) AS I pointed earlier manusmriti is not applicable for kaliyuga
6) What is supposed to be applicable for Kaliyuga cannot be called a part of Hinduism. Not every ancient Indian work can be considered a part of Hinduism.
7) ]parasharsmriti is believed to be written in 1300 A.D.
8) Where is Vivekananda saying manusmriti is a part of Hinduism?
9) Ofcourse we can "obey" any "ancient Indian work". It our choice!
10) I already stated that you may or may not believe in anything.
11) But where is the part of Hinduism or for that matter any ancient Indian faith like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism vowing to kill people of aother faiths? Where is Budda saying I'm the best?

Oh, I forgot you already chickened out on the 11th point! :D



karnivore said:
Actually, there is no difference between the translations, except for their style of writing and choice of words. “Immolation” is probably a better choice of word for “vyadadhuh”. Stephen Knapp, interprets it as “sacrifice” (see below). However, there are many other sanskritist, who apparently prefer to translate the word “vyadadhuh” as “that they divided” (refer Purusha Shukta Bhasya by Ranganatha Muni). In any case, both the translations, end up implying the same thing – creation of 4 varnas. But first a clarification: this debate has nothing to do with caste. You are turning it into one. The reason is obvious. The web page you are using is a critique on caste, and hence, almost all the arguments are made with caste on mind. Anyway.

Wilson’s translatation is:

11. When they immolated Purusa, into how many portions did they divide him?
What was his mouth called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called?

12. His mouth became the Brahmana, his arms became the Rajnya,
His thighs became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet.

Griffith translation:

11. When they divided Puruṣa how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?


12. The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced.

Stephen Knapp’s translation:
.
.
.
You generalise on people like Stephen Knapp and frawley, call them insult to mankind and "scum" and then bring up their translations? Mocking urself again and again!

Coming to the point, their is a huge difference between "translation". But ofcourse a religion hater and helpless illiterate would obviously fail to see it.

Arms symbolise something. The "nature"/"karma" of mouth has been pointed to "brahman" in the correct translation. It means "if you show the characteristics of brahman" you are called brahman. Now, This ofcourse relates to professional environment and how you contribute to the society.

Whereas in griffith's translation it says "brahman was his mouth". It means one who is "brahman" shows the nature/karma of "mouth". So who is a brahman? The definition of brahman remains void.

I already stated this and you call it "gibberish"? :oops:

Further, understand the difference between "immolate" and "divide" and difference given in the article that I even highlighted in the previous post and obviously ignored by u.






karnivore said:
late_sankaracharya_of_kanchi said:
Let us first consider the view that according to the Vedas themselves caste is not based on birth. (After all, the Vedas are the source of our religion. So it is essential to be clear on this point.) Earlier I sought to counter the view that there was Vedic sanction for post-puberty marriages. The present contention about what the Vedas say about caste is similar, being based on a passage read out of context. What is mentioned as an exception to the rule is being interpreted as a rule itself. I will give firm proof in support of the view that caste is based on birth and not on the nature or quality of individuals. The caula of children belonging to particular caste is performed at the age of three, the upanayana at five or seven. These are samskaras based on birth and performed in childhood. So it would be absurd to claim that one's vocation is based on one's nature of qualities. Is it possible to determine one's qualities or nature in early childhood?
………
Some concede that Bhagavan does not deny caste differences, but however argue that, according to the Lord, caste is not based on birth but on the individual qualities of people. In support they quote this line from the Gita. "Caturvarnyam mayasrstam guna-karma-vibagasah".
When do we come to know the qualities that distinguish an individual? At what age does he reveal his nature? How are we to determine this and impart him the education and training necessary for the vocation that will be in keeping with his qualities? Take, for instance, the calling of the Brahmin who has to join the gurukula when he is seven or eight years old. His education covers a period of twelve years; after this alone will he be qualified for his vocation which includes, among other things, teaching. If a man's occupation were to be fixed until after his character and qualities are formed, it would mean a waste of his youthful years. Even if he were to learn a job or trade thus at a late age it would mean a loss not only to himself but also to society. The Lord speaks again and again that we must be constantly engaged in work and that we must not remain idle even a moment. How then would he approve of an arrangement in which every individual has to be without any work until his vocation is determined according to his character?
………
It is jatidharma that goes to make the inner guna (inner quality or nature) of an individual. So Sri Krsna's dictum in the Gita that the caturvana division is in accord with the gunas and the idea that the caste is based on birth are one and the same. There is no conflict between the two. You cannot find fault with Sri Krsna for his practice being at variance with his precept.

Parasurama and Dronacarya were Brahmins but they were Ksatriyas by nature. On the other hand, Visvamitra, a valorous Ksatriya king known for his violent and passionate temperament, became a Brahmin rsi. Cases like this are extremely rare, and are exceptions to the rule of jati dharma.
…….
How can birth be the basis of the quality on which one's occupation is based? Before a man's individual character develops, he grows in a certain environment, the environment evolved through the vocation practiced in his family from generation to generation. He adopts this vocation and receives training in it from his people. It is in this manner that his guna is formed, and it is in keeping with his work. Everybody must have the conviction that he is benefited by the occupation to which he is born. When people in the past had this attitude in the past they were free from greed and feelings of rivalry. Besides, though they were divided on the basis of their vocations, there was harmony among them. Children born in such a set-up naturally develop a liking and aptitude for the family vocation. So what is practised according to birth came to be the same as that practised according to guna. Whatever the view of reformers today, in the old days an individual's ability to do a job was in accord with his guna; and in the dharma obtained in the past a man practised his calling according to his guna. Now it has become topsy-turvy.
You seem to quoting half parts all the time and generalising on those parts. Like they say "Half a knowledge is a dangerous thing"! And our helpless illiterate wins in such a talent. :D


1) What sankaracharya says is his own opinions and understanding
2) He already knows the supremacy of Vedas which talk of class by nature, reflected in Gita.
3) here's the continuation of his speech/opinion .....


late_sankaracharya_of_kanchi_speech_continued said:
It is jatidharma that goes to make the inner guna (inner quality or nature) of an individual. So Sri Krsna's dictum in the Gita that the caturvana division is in accord with the gunas and the idea that the caste is based on birth are one and the same. There is no conflict between the two. You cannot find fault with Sri Krsna for his practice being at variance with his precept.

Parasurama and Dronacarya were Brahmins but they were Ksatriyas by nature. On the other hand, Visvamitra, a valorous Ksatriya king known for his violent and passionate temperament, became a Brahmin rsi. Cases like this are extremely rare, and are exceptions to the rule of jati dharma. On the whole we see that the Lord functions on the basis that, whatever be the outward qualities of individuals, their inner quality is in keeping with their hereditary vocations.

How can birth be the basis of the quality on which one's occupation is based? Before a man's individual character develops, he grows in a certain environment, the environment evolved through the vocation practiced in his family from generation to generation. He adopts this vocation and receives training in it from his people. [SIZE=+1]It is in this manner that his guna is formed[/SIZE], and it is in keeping with his work. Everybody must have the conviction that he is benefited by the occupation to which he is born. When people in the past had this attitude in the past they were free from greed and feelings of rivalry. Besides, though they were divided on the basis of their vocations, there was harmony among them. Children born in such a set-up naturally develop a liking and aptitude for the family vocation. So what is practised according to birth came to be the same as that practised according to guna. Whatever the view of reformers today, in the old days an individual's ability to do a job was in accord with his guna; and in the dharma obtained in the past a man practised his calling according to his guna. Now it has become topsy-turvy.

What is the view of the psychologists on this question? According to them, heredity and environment play a crucial part in determining a man's character, abilities and attitudes. In the past all vocations were handed down from grandfather to father and from father to son. Besides, each group practising a particular occupation or trade lived in a separate area in the village. The Brahmins, for instance, lived in the agrahara and, similarly, each of the other jatis had its own quarter. So the environment also helped each section to develop its special skills and character. These two factors - heredity and environment - were greatly instrumental in shaping a person's guna and vocation.

Instead of speaking about the subject myself, I will cite the views of Gandhiji who is much respected by the reformists: "The Gita does talk of varna being according to guna and karma, but guna and karma are inherited by birth." So the fact that Krsna Paramatman's practice is not at variance with his doctrine is confirmed by Gandhiji. Modernists should not twist and distort the Vedas and sastras and the pronouncements of Krsna Paramatman to suit their own contentions.

Krsna is usually imperative in his utterances. "I speak, you listen," such is his manner. But when he speaks of people and their duties, he does not inpose himself saying "I speak thus", but instead he points to what is laid down in the sastras to be the authority. During Krsna's own time the various castes were divided according to birth: we learn this, without any room for doubt, from the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata and the Visnu Purana. I mention this because some research scholars today are likely to put forward the view that caste based on birth evolved after the time of Krsna. The epic and the Puranas mentioned above declare categorically that during the age of Sri Krsna Paramatman the sastras dealing with varnasrama were the authority for dharma. It was at such a time, when an individual's vocation was determined by birth, that the Lord declared in clear terms :

Yah sastra -vidhim utsrjya vartate kama-karatah

Na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim

Tasmacchastram pramanam te karyakaryavyavasthitau

Jnatva sastravidhan oktam karma kartum iha'rhasi

-Bhagavadgita, 16. 23 & 24.

Who so forsakes the injunctions of the sastras and lives according to his own desires does not obtain liberation, finds no happiness. (The Sastras determine your work, what is right and what is wrong. You must know the way shown by the sastras and pursue the work - vocation - according to them.)


Sri Krsna establishes that an individual owes his caste to his birth. There should not be the slightest doubt about it.

What Sankaracharya has added is even more broader picture!
1) WE all know that Vedas and Gita talk of "by karma" definition of the class
2) What Sankaracharya has added is that when a person is born he takes those "gunas" automatically from his family and environment which is so true! A person born in a doctor's family will obviously be knowing more about medicinal field by default! A person born in a business family will obviously be knowing more about business terms and environment more than any other field and might take it as a profession also
3) He says "Parasurama and Dronacarya were Brahmins but they were Ksatriyas by nature" which is again true since they were brought up in a brahmin family but their nature was more like that of a 'kshatriya'. We all know the story of Parushrama and Dronacharaya, their revenge and battles!
4) The last line is again true, since a person who is born in a brahmin family should tell clearly (owe) of where and in which family he was born. Krishna himself was a "cattle grazer" in his childhood.
5) He says, "These two factors - heredity and environment - were greatly instrumental in shaping a person's guna and vocation." which is again true and implies that a person born under any class can move on to any class. i.e A child born in a Sudra family and under the influence of knowledge and teachers can become as knowledgable as them, and hence a brahmin.
6) Like I said, it seems u continue to give less importance to the scriptures themselves instead "googling" what others think about it. "Herd instinct" still reflects on u in full glory!


As I already said, I neither follow science blindly nor even the scriptures of my own religion. And so, I don't care who is "holy" for even the holiest of the holy might be wrong on an opinion.







And now, lets see what post of mine you missed and quoted gibberish....

1) The complete article that I highlighted in bolds for a helpless illiterate like you who only knows how to generalise on people who disagree and opine one the basis of single verses and statements instead of the complete reads and conversations!
2) Rejection of manusmriti by dharma sansad!
3) The rigvedic verse talking of sex equality.
4) The explanation, difference between wilson's and griffith's translations
5) Your idiotic reply on "Buddhism and Jainsim" exposed!
6) Exposition of your hatred and your opinion of "boastful" nature of verses.
7) Not telling where I disagreed with prabhupada. I'll give cerelac to u if you do tell. :D
8 ) Not telling who called Karna a Shudra and where with exact verses!? And finally....

9) verses from buddhist scriptures where Buddha is saying he is the best or against Vedas
10) verses where all the religions i.e sikhism, hindism, buddhism, jainism etc are asking to kill people of other religions and again where gurunanak saying is the best etc!

Reply to it ALL, if wisdom succeeds in blessing you by fluke at anytime in future.



You mock urself, you ran naked and now you chicken out, defining and redfining ur troll that remained non-adherent to the topic bet. me and amitash. Well done!
 
Last edited:

vamsi_krishna

Human Spambot
here we go again...

mediator and karnivore don't your fingers sting in typing those contents...

Both of you are kinda typingbots....

you guys should have wax statues...

Hats off...
 

karnivore

in your face..
^^ We are two internet warriors, busy making no difference to each other.
Reply to it ALL
Your wish is my command. I will make replying to your gibberish my day job, if you want.
1) I know u r frustrated a lot but learn to quote the source. And it better be not "sacred-texts.com"
2) You seem to have highlighted the first part. Ofcourse the good part can also always be taken into consideration as highlighted by me
3) FYI, Manusmriti was most relevant in "satyuga" and as we know what we have today is nothing but distortions as I already stated. "Parashara smriti" was the one that was compiled for kaliyuga. But again these are not supreme scriptures.


CHATUSHPATSKALO DHARMAHA SATYAM CHAIVA KRITE YUGE ||
NA ADHARMENAAGAMAHA KASHCHINA MANUSHYANPRATI VARTATE ||

Meaning: All the four legs of Dharma were present during the Krita Yuga. Truth always prevaled at that time. No human acted unrighteous against anyone.
http://www.urday.in/manusmriti.htm



KRITE TU MANAVO DHARMASTRETAYAAM GAUTAMO SMRITAH ||
DWAPARE SHANKHALIKHITAA KALAU PARASHARAH SMRITAH ||

Meaning- Manu Smriti was most relevant in Satya Yuga. In Treta, Smriti created by Gautam had most relevance whereas in Dwapar, Shankh's Smriti was mostly recognized. But in Kali Yuga, it is Parashar Smriti that by and large shows the way to the ignorant people.

Parashar Smriti endorses all those ideologies of human life which are capable of improving the life of common people in the present fourth age. Paradoxes are the main feature of human life in Kali Yuga irrespective of region, culture and society.

http://www.urday.in/parashar.htm
1) The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.

2) And how does that even remotely change the argument in any way. The argument was, if Manusmriti is/was a part of Hinduism and I have quoted Sankaracharya, to show, what the most important Acharya of Hinduism thinks.

3) You are now clutching at straws. Now lets see when did Kaliyug start. There is no definite date. However, from Aryabhatiya, Aryabhata’s seminal work, we get a date. It is 3012 BC. Guess, when Manusmriti was composed. From one of your links, actually, V.K.Singhal’s gibberish, it was 200 BC. (See, I am using your source only) This would imply, that Manusmriti was written in an age, for the age, that was already gone. That’s called anachronism. There is some more anachronism in verse 1.24 (the second verse) of ParasraSmriti. For example, Gautam Smriti predates Manusmriti, and there is evidence, that Manu copied certain verse from Gautama Smriti. Yet, according to Parashara, GautamaSmriti is supposed to be applicable to the age, that comes next to what Manusmriti is supposed to be applicable to. That’s bizarre.

Parashara also makes a logical error. Krita yug is supposed to be the perfect yug. No rules were required then. In Shanti Parva (12.59), Bhishma explains to Yudhishtira, “With concentrated attention, O tiger among kings, listen to it in detail as to how in the Krita age sovereignty first began. At first there was no sovereignty, no king, no chastisement, and no chastiser. All men used to protect one another righteously. As they thus lived, O Bharata, righteously protecting one another, they found the task (after some time) to be painful. Error then began to assail their hearts. Having become subject to error, the perceptions of men, O prince, came to be clouded, and thence their virtue began to decline. When their perceptions were dimmed and when men became subject to error, all of them became covetous.”

He then goes on to conclude, that “In consequence, however, of the cessation of all pious rites among men, great distress will be our lot. Do thou then, O Grandsire, think of that which would benefit us, so that the universe, created by thy power, may not meet with destruction.' Thus addressed, the Self-born and divine Lord said unto them, 'I shall think of what will do good to all. Ye foremost of gods, let your fears be dispelled!' The Grandsire then composed by his own intelligence a treatise consisting of a hundred thousand chapters. In it were treated the subject of Virtue, Profit, and Pleasure. Which the Self-born designated as the triple aggregate”

In other words, the rules are applicable to the yugas, that succeed Krita (Satya yug). A very silly logical error on the part of Parashara. The funny part is, after trying to assert his Smriti as authoritative for his age, he actually goes on to quote Manusmriti on several occasions.

From complete denial of Manusmriti as part of Hinduism to partial acceptance that it is indeed a part, albeit related to some other mythical age, is indeed a progress in the right direction.
U missed the start of my previous post itself...

"The wife and husband, being the equal halves of one substance, are equal in every respect; therefore both should join and take equal parts in all work, religious and secular "
(RV Book 5, hymn 61. verse 8 )

That I to all the people may address this salutary speech, To priest and nobleman, Sudra and Arya, to one of our own kin and to the stranger. Dear may I be to Gods and guerdon-giver. Fulfilled be this my hope: be that my portion! (Yajur-Veda Ch.26 - V2)

The truth of the 4 varnas working together for the society is again given in the previous post of mine which u seem to have missed.

And u think it doesn't contradict Vedas? U seem to enjoyin running naked everywhere now.
No I didn’t miss any part. I just didn’t know what you were trying to imply. Thanks for clarifying.

There is absolutely nothing in Manusmriti that contradicts RV 5.61.8 or YV 26.2. In fact Manusmriti acknowledges that husband and wife are equal halves of the Lord

Dividing his own body, the Lord became half male and half female; (M 1.32)

Again, regarding 4 varnas, Manus says nothing against Varnas working together. He merely points out the duties of each class and that each should do his own duty, respective to his caste. That’s not contradiction.
Far from it. In post#1072, I had observed, “There is a growing trend among a bunch of Hindu apologist, to deny the veracity of Manusmriti. Surprisingly, VHP happens to belong to those deniers.” What do you think I was referring to.

So now you are going to argue with what that demented dickhead has to say. Some golden words from the pamphlet:

“Caste untouchability never existed in our society. It is the creation of the Muslim rule because those who put up a fight and did not convert to Islam were punished for their commitment to their indigenous ethos and thrown out of the society as untouchables. These heroic people are enlisted as scheduled castes. We must differentiate between the 'scheduled castes' and the 'Shudras'. Shudras were held with respect before the advent of the Smritis and the scheduled castes are of recent origin created during the muslim rule.”

It is however futile to point out the ginormous historical errors. Anyway, please don’t quote such idiotic political agenda driven articles. it will do you no good. Now, since you have quoted Singhal, I will assume that you support what he says. That makes you a dickhead as well. Congratulations.

Dang! Back in denial mode.
Again generalising on the basis of one statement? Summer heat, frustration and desperation must really be takin a toll on ur fragile brain.

You did not source the quote. But here it is and read it all =>http://www.vivekananda.net/Lectures/...Almora/13.html
Post#1072.

Vivekanda, in his famous lecture, “The Work Before Us”, notes “Says our great law-giver, Manu: "Receive some good knowledge even from the low-born, and even from the man of lowest birth learn by service the road to heaven." We, therefore, as true children of Manu, must obey hiscommands and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us.” (The Complete Works of Vivekanda, Vol. 3)
1) Vivek Ananda is addressing something.
2) Understand what that something is.
3) In between his speech he says "everyone can teach us great lessons"
4) He points to manu, the law giver with the statement as in second bold.
5) AS I pointed earlier manusmriti is not applicable for kaliyuga
6) What is supposed to be applicable for Kaliyuga cannot be called a part of Hinduism. Not every ancient Indian work can be considered a part of Hinduism.
7) ]parasharsmriti is believed to be written in 1300 A.D.
8)Where is Vivekananda saying manusmriti is a part of Hinduism?
9) Ofcourse we can "obey" any "ancient Indian work". It our choice!
10) I already stated that you may or may not believe in anything.
11) But where is the part of Hinduism or for that matter any ancient Indian faith like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism vowing to kill people of aother faiths? Where is Budda saying I'm the best?

Oh, I forgot you already chickened out on the 11th point!
1) to 4) How in freaking hell does the context of his speech change the fact, that he is asking to follow Manusmriti.

5) to 7) Refer above.

8) Dang!

9) No body is denying that.

10) So ???? I believe than moon is made of cheese. How tenable is that belief.

11) Replied before. If you have a memory span like a gold fish, it is not my problem.
You generalise on people like Stephen Knapp and frawley, call them insult to mankind and "scum" and then bring up their translations? Mocking urself again and again!

Coming to the point, their is a huge difference between "translation". But ofcourse a religion hater and helpless illiterate would obviously fail to see it.

Arms symbolise something. The "nature"/"karma" of mouth has been pointed to "brahman" in the correct translation. It means "if you show the characteristics of brahman" you are called brahman. Now, This ofcourse relates to professional environment and how you contribute to the society.

Whereas in griffith's translation it says "brahman was his mouth". It means one who is "brahman" shows the nature/karma of "mouth". So who is a brahman? The definition of brahman remains void.

I already stated this and you call it "gibberish"?

Further, understand the difference between "immolate" and "divide" and difference given in the article that I even highlighted in the previous post and obviously ignored by u.
1) Because you have a certain thing for scums.

2) Nope. They end up saying the same thing. Creation of 4 varnas.

3) Bullsh!t. I have already explained the symbolism. Once more, for your goldfish memory.

“Contrary to what you (actually your favourite author), are implying, that caste is based on “nature”, the reference in verse 12, is of “duties” (which btw, means “dharma” here), not nature. Mouth represents Brahmin, because they are to study and preach the words of Vedas. Arms represent Kshatriyas, because they are for protection and fighting. Thighs hold the torso, and thus represent Vaisyas, who are to be traders and agriculturist. Feet, make the entire body move. Hence Sudras get to be the feet, because they are supposed to do the most menial tasks, so that the society can move.”

4) Another bullsh!t. Let go of that straw you are clutching at. Both the translations imply the same symbolism. I have given the Sanskrit verse as well. Did you miss that. Here’s once more for your gold fish memory.

“brahma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]o asya mukhamasid bahu rajanya[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] k[FONT=&quot]ṛ[/FONT]ta[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
urutadasya yad vaisya[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] padbhya[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] sudro ajayata”

Use your ISCE, 8th standard Sanskrit. (That level of Sanskrit won’t be enough, though)

5) If you want, I can use a synonym for “gibberish”
You seem to quoting half parts all the time and generalising on those parts. Like they say "Half a knowledge is a dangerous thing"! And our helpless illiterate wins in such a talent.


1) What sankaracharya says is his own opinions and understanding
2) He already knows the supremacy of Vedas which talk of class by nature, reflected in Gita.
3) here's the continuation of his speech/opinion .....
Links to both the chapters were given.

1) Yes of course.

2) Irrelevant.
What Sankaracharya has added is even more broader picture!
1) WE all know that Vedas and Gita talk of "by karma" definition of the class
2) What Sankaracharya has added is that when a person is born he takes those "gunas" automatically from his family and environment which is so true! A person born in a doctor's family will obviously be knowing more about medicinal field by default! A person born in a business family will obviously be knowing more about business terms and environment more than any other field and might take it as a profession also
3) He says "Parasurama and Dronacarya were Brahmins but they were Ksatriyas by nature" which is again true since they were brought up in a brahmin family but their nature was more like that of a 'kshatriya'. We all know the story of Parushrama and Dronacharaya, their revenge and battles!
4) The last line is again true, since a person who is born in a brahmin family should tell clearly (owe) of where and in which family he was born. Krishna himself was a "cattle grazer" in his childhood.
5) He says, "These two factors - heredity and environment - were greatly instrumental in shaping a person's guna and vocation." which is again true and implies that a person born under any class can move on to any class. i.e A child born in a Sudra family and under the influence of knowledge and teachers can become as knowledgable as them, and hence a brahmin.
6) Like I said, it seems u continue to give less importance to the scriptures themselves instead "googling" what others think about it. "Herd instinct" still reflects on u in full glory!


As I already said, I neither follow science blindly nor even the scriptures of my own religion. And so, I don't care who is "holy" for even the holiest of the holy might be wrong on an opinion.
So whats the fuss. Birth and upbringing result in the so called “Guna”. Now, since this “Guna” is the apparent key to determine caste, therefore, “birth” and “upbringing” in effect become the key to caste. Now, since, it is only in rare cases that a person born in one caste is brought up by another, e.g. adoption, ultimately, “birth” becomes the key. This is because, a person “born” in a caste, will be “brought up” in accordance to that caste. So, all you have to do is take birth, in a caste. Dang!

Theorem proved. Where’s my candy ?

Regarding, Drona and Kripa, Sankaracharya rejects them as, “extremely rare, and are exceptions to the rule of jati dharma.

Case closed.

As with the “herd instinct”, I understand your frustration.
And now, lets see what post of mine you missed and quoted gibberish....

1) The complete article that I highlighted in bolds for a helpless illiterate like you who only knows how to generalise on people who disagree and opine one the basis of single verses and statements instead of the complete reads and conversations!
2) Rejection of manusmriti by dharma sansad!
3) The rigvedic verse talking of sex equality.
4) The explanation, difference between wilson's and griffith's translations
5) Your idiotic reply on "Buddhism and Jainsim" exposed!
6) Exposition of your hatred and your opinion of "boastful" nature of verses.
7) Not telling where I disagreed with prabhupada. I'll give cerelac to u if you do tell.
8 ) Not telling who called Karna a Shudra and where with exact verses!? And finally....

9) verses from buddhist scriptures where Buddha is saying he is the best or against Vedas
10) verses where all the religions i.e sikhism, hindism, buddhism, jainism etc are asking to kill people of other religions and again where gurunanak saying is the best etc!

Reply to it ALL, if wisdom succeeds in blessing you by fluke at anytime in future.
O yeah. You got me.
1) Reviewing an entire website is not my day job. I did, however responded to the relevant parts, which incidentally, and curiously, seemed to have slipped your attention.

2) Awaiting evidence.

3) So is Manusmriti. I told you, Manu was a clever dick. He said what he had to say without violating the Vedas. That’s talent.

4) If you are incapable, it doesn’t mean everyone is.

5) Oooooo. Where do I hide ?

6) The other verses are still standing, practically crying for your attention.

7) Coming back again again with the same verse, is proof that Prabhupada couldn’t satisfy you. Btw, can I have that Cerelac. Love it.

8) Ooooooooo…poor baby. Here you go.

“Seeing the charioteer, the Pandava Bhimasena took Karna for a charioteer's son, and said by way of ridicule, 'O son of a charioteer, thou dost not deserve death in fight at the hands of Partha. As befits thy race take thou anon the whip. And, O worst of mortals, surely thou art not worthy to sway the kingdom of Anga, even as a dog doth not deserve the butter placed before the sacrificial fire.' ”

Adi Parva:Sambhaba Parva

“But seeing Karna, Draupadi loudly said, 'I will not select a Suta for my lord.' Then Karna, laughing in vexation and casting glance at the Sun, threw aside the bow already drawn to a circle.”

Adi Parva:Swayamvara Parva

EXPECTED COUNTER-ARGUMENT: But I don’t see the word “sudra”. Therefore I am right, you are so worng. NANANANANANA.

9) And the fact that Buddhism is non-theistic, means nothing.

10) Replied way back, Mr Goldfish Brain.

I am now tempted to compile my own list. The forum will run out of web space then.
 

mediator

Technomancer
karnivore said:
“Seeing the charioteer, the Pandava Bhimasena took Karna for a charioteer's son, and said by way of ridicule, 'O son of a charioteer, thou dost not deserve death in fight at the hands of Partha. As befits thy race take thou anon the whip. And, O worst of mortals, surely thou art not worthy to sway the kingdom of Anga, even as a dog doth not deserve the butter placed before the sacrificial fire.' ”

Adi Parva:Sambhaba Parva

“But seeing Karna, Draupadi loudly said, 'I will not select a Suta for my lord.' Then Karna, laughing in vexation and casting glance at the Sun, threw aside the bow already drawn to a circle.”

Adi Parva:Swayamvara Parva

EXPECTED COUNTER-ARGUMENT: But I don’t see the word “sudra”. Therefore I am right, you are so worng. NANANANANANA.
Poor lil mumble bee, is this the best you can come up with? Like I said, know what 'mahabharata' is. You already stated yuddhistir before i.e someone who was considered a Dharma Raj and yet staked his own wife and 4 brothers. Now you quote Bhishma who too could not do anything during draupadi "vastra haran"? I hope you know that Hindus neither follow Bhishma nor draupadi. It seems you didn't see my point. I was never after the point whether karna was called shudra in Mahabharat or not! :D
 

karnivore

in your face..
Poor lil mumble bee, is this the best you can come up with? Like I said, know what 'mahabharata' is. You already stated yuddhistir before i.e someone who was considered a Dharma Raj and yet staked his own wife and 4 brothers. Now you quote Bhishma who too could not do anything during draupadi "vastra haran"? I hope you know that Hindus neither follow Bhishma nor draupadi. It seems you didn't see my point. I was never after the point whether karna was called shudra in Mahabharat or not! :D
How infinitely idiotic.
image20.gif


Bhisma, Bhima and Draupadi represent society. Not every character in MBH is worshiped, but that doesn't make them any less important. Nobody worships Dranacharya or Kripachrya, and yet you chose to use them as example. Why ? Did you forget your own premise ?

Btw, since you quoted me on Karna - it was not Bhisma, it was Bhima. The fact that, the Arjuna didn't compete with Karna, at the archery competition, on the plea of Karna being of lower caste, is proof (one of the many) that caste discrimination existed during the times of MBH. The comment of Bhima was, when Duryadhana had already coronated him as the king of Anga. The comments stand testimony to the fact that, if one is born of lower caste, it is not easy to wash it away. Denial of Draupadi to marry Karna, in spite of the fact, that he was then the king, and supposedly, a kshatriya, is another proof, of how caste can't easily be washed away from public psyche. All these are representative of the society that used to be at that point in time.

Ok pumpkin ?

It is only natural that somebody who can't make sense of this, relatively easy symbolism, would actually be finding the symbolism of chess game and Drapaudi's de-robing difficult to comprehend.
 
Last edited:

vamsi_krishna

Human Spambot
The fact that, the Arjuna didn't compete with Karna, at the archery competition, on the plea of Karna being of lower caste, is proof (one of the many) that caste discrimination existed during the times of MBH

Karnivore, I'm not a geeky boy like you to know all the stuff.I'm not happy with your saying.I asked the same question during the ISKON's youth fest.

I asked "Karna was not allowed to participate in the contest against Arjuna because he belongs to lower cast, Dosen't that mean there were cast discriminations that time...But you said that only the modren man created these casts, Can you explain me about this thing.?"

Guruji replied like this "See young fellow, not allowing a person to participate in some contest is not mean that there were cast discriminations in those days. There were pre defined duties for every caste. And most important thing is there is dignity of labour in those days. No one used to make fun of odd jobs done by a person. All knew the importance of every person in the society. There were no untouchabilities those days. The reason why karna was not matched to arjuna is not because of his cast but because of the work alloted to his cast. He suppose to do that work. Do you think our officials will see or accept if you want to have a debate against Rahul Gandhi or some thing equal to his cadre...NO. That what it's meant to be. As soon as Dhruyodhana gave some of his kingdoms to Karna. No one objected. Because he is Kshatriya now and he has every right to challenge Arjuna."

Then I asked about Ekalavya. "How do you justify Dhronacharya's attitude against Ekalavya who is a tribal child."

He replied-"Yes, here again Dhronacharya is a rajaguru. He is not a ordinary person to spare his time to make some tibal people educated on warfare. You can see that Drona has not shown any disrespet to Ekalavya when he approched. Later he even went to his place and accepted thier offerings."
 

mediator

Technomancer
karnivore said:
Bhisma, Bhima and Draupadi represent society. Not every character in MBH is worshiped, but that doesn't make them any less important. Nobody worships Dranacharya or Kripachrya, and yet you chose to use them as example. Why ? Did you forget your own premise ?
My premise? :shock: Last I checked, it was Shankaracharya explaining on the basis of that and I explaining what Shakaracharya said where you half quoted him to add to ur shame.

Further its not "kripacharya" and dronacharya that Shakaracharya was talking about, but "Parushrama" and 'dronacharya'. Atleast read before mumbling.

Like I said understand what Mahabharata is.

Neways and again,
Where are the
1) verses from buddhist scriptures where Buddha is saying he is the best or against Vedas
2) verses where all the religions i.e sikhism, hindism, buddhism, jainism etc are asking to kill people of other religions and again where gurunanak saying is the best etc!

I'm sure u can pull ur chlidhish "you said this and me said this" debate once more. :D

Poor lil helpless illiterate trying to plaguirize critics site again n again, even on "karna" something that typical critics usually come up with, putting lil images thinking it will make him look cool and generalising on all those who he disagrees with. :oops:


How ironic, that a person who think religion seeds hatred and intolerance, is generalising on all those who he disagrees with calling them scum etc and plagiarizing critics site to seed his hatred against religion.


@vamsikrishna : Careful, you might also face the brunt of his generalisation skills!
 
Last edited:

karnivore

in your face..
You were right in your contention, and if you still hold that position, then you continue to be correct. The replies that you got from ISKON representative, are the typical prevarication that they churn out from their stable.
I asked "Karna was not allowed to participate in the contest against Arjuna because he belongs to lower cast, Dosen't that mean there were cast discriminations that time...But you said that only the modren man created these casts, Can you explain me about this thing.?"

Guruji replied like this "See young fellow, not allowing a person to participate in some contest is not mean that there were cast discriminations in those days. There were pre defined duties for every caste. And most important thing is there is dignity of labour in those days. No one used to make fun of odd jobs done by a person. All knew the importance of every person in the society. There were no untouchabilities those days. The reason why karna was not matched to arjuna is not because of his cast but because of the work alloted to his cast. He suppose to do that work. Do you think our officials will see or accept if you want to have a debate against Rahul Gandhi or some thing equal to his cadre...NO. That what it's meant to be. As soon as Dhruyodhana gave some of his kingdoms to Karna. No one objected. Because he is Kshatriya now and he has every right to challenge Arjuna."
The gentleman correctly implies that it is not the duty that determines the caste, as some people here have tried desperately to prove, but it is the caste that determines the work. In other words, if a person is born into a certain caste, he is expected to do a work, which is exclusively allocated to his caste. But then, he goes on to create a wedge between "being of a cast" and "work allocated to his cast", in a way, so as to create an impression, that somehow, "work allocated to his caste" is independent of "being of a cast". It certainly is not the case. If a person is being refused a certain something, whatever it may be, on the basis of "work allocated to his caste", then to know what his allocated work is, one has to first know, what caste he belongs to. This is akin to judging one, by his caste alone. Let me explain this with Karna's example only.

Karna, was believed to be a son of charioteer. So the work expected of him was of charioteering. However, Karna through is personal effort, and from Parshurama, learned the art of archery and war. But, at the competition, when he challenged Arjuna, he was reminded of his status as a low caste. He was being judged on the basis of "work expected of him" (in the words of that gentleman representing ISKON), but not on the basis of "work, that he was capable of". The work, that was expected of him, again, depended on the caste that he belonged to.

Therefore, by implication: a) he was being judged on the basis of caste alone since the caste duty depended on his caste, b) caste duty mattered more than individual ability.

In my book, it is caste discrimination, when someone's individual ability takes a back seat to one's caste, or if you so insist, caste imposed duty.
Then I asked about Ekalavya. "How do you justify Dhronacharya's attitude against Ekalavya who is a tribal child."

He replied-"Yes, here again Dhronacharya is a rajaguru. He is not a ordinary person to spare his time to make some tibal people educated on warfare. You can see that Drona has not shown any disrespet to Ekalavya when he approched. Later he even went to his place and accepted thier offerings."
Lets first assume that the gentleman is correct (which he is not, and I will get to it, in a second). The question still remains: why did Drona refuse Ekalavya, on basis of his low caste ? This remains unanswered. The answer of course is, that, it was convenient for Drona to use the excuse of caste, because it was an acceptable reason in the society then. This allowed him to hide his true intentions.

His true intentions, and this is where that gentleman went wrong and strangely, MBH is very clear about this, was to protect his favourite student Arjuna. In Ekalavya, Drona had seen a future competitor of Arjuna, which later on proved to be correct. But Drona, who apparently loved Arjuna more than his own son, had promised to Arjuna that, in archery, there will be no one better than him. He therefore, refused to accept Ekalavya as his disciple, and used his low caste as an excuse. Much later, on being quized by Drona about his extraordinary skills in archery, Ekalavya admitted that he had in fact always considered Drona as his guru (master), and that he drew inspiration from him. Drona then, didn't hesitate to do the most selfish thing one can expect of him. He asked for the thumb as gurudakshina (fees for his training). Thus he ensured that, Ekalavya would never be able to hold his bow properly and can never match upto the skills of Arjuna.

Hope this helps.
Karnivore, I'm not a geeky boy like you...

Geeky ? Guilty as charged. Boy ? Its been decades since I have been a boy. Wouldn't mind being one though. :twisted:

[SIGH]Those were the days[/SIGH]:cry:

 

vamsi_krishna

Human Spambot
Therefore, by implication: a) he was being judged on the basis of caste alone since the caste duty depended on his caste, b) caste duty mattered more than individual ability.


A) You are Absolutely correct. Lord Krishna in Geetha said that "There are four casts Kshatriya, Bramhana, vaisya, soodra. And he alloted the works that every person bron in a cast to do. To be important(I've said it before) no caste discriminations or untouchability those days.

B) You are correct again..Although a person has knowledge in Vedas he was not allowed to conduct marriages or yagnas. If a person has knowlege in vedas, you are not supposed to bring him as a priest to a marriage. You will go only for Bramhins. Becuase, of their cast not of individiual ebility.

In my book, it is caste discrimination, when someone's individual ability takes a back seat to one's caste, or if you so insist, caste imposed duty.

There is Cast discrimination. Discrimination is only supposed to be for their duties. No one is kept out of temples, none had faced untouchability. So, it's purely discrimination for alloting works. And to make a organised society.
His true intentions, and this is where that gentleman went wrong and strangely, MBH is very clear about this, was to protect his favourite student Arjuna. In Ekalavya, Drona had seen a future competitor of Arjuna, which later on proved to be correct. But Drona, who apparently loved Arjuna more than his own son, had promised to Arjuna that, in archery, there will be no one better than him. He therefore, refused to accept Ekalavya as his disciple, and used his low caste as an excuse

Wrong.... Drona didn't knew that ekalvya go this far. He said in his heart when ekalavya showed all his abilities after learning that, "if i knew you would be this great, i would have accepted your request to teach you and i would have thought you less than arjuna."

My grandmother told me that the reson why drona rejected is becuase he is raja guru. He can only teach to Kshatiryas and to be precise "ONLY TO THE CHILDREN OF THAT FAMILY"
 

karnivore

in your face..
A) You are Absolutely correct. Lord Krishna in Geetha said that "There are four casts Kshatriya, Bramhana, vaisya, soodra. And he alloted the works that every person bron in a cast to do. To be important(I've said it before) no caste discriminations or untouchability those days.
Yes I am aware of the verses in Gita. I am also aware, that Gita imposes restrictions on inter-caste duties i.e. one should do the duty of one’s caste even if he is more capable of doing the duties of another caste. The whole point is not of duty allocation, but of caste one belongs to.

Anyway, I am not sure why you are saying that there was no caste discriminations. Discriminating someone on the basis of duties of caste, is same as discrimination on the basis of caste. Regarding “untouchability”, it is one form of caste discrimination – an extreme form. We were not debating the different forms of discrimination, but just discrimination as a whole. It is, therefore, irrelevant to the current discussion.
B) You are correct again..Although a person has knowledge in Vedas he was not allowed to conduct marriages or yagnas. If a person has knowlege in vedas, you are not supposed to bring him as a priest to a marriage. You will go only for Bramhins. Becuase, of their cast not of individiual ebility.
The whole concept of priesthood is built around this. No one else can be a priest, except for a Brahmin, regardless of his ability to perform the priestly rituals better than a Brahmin. Recently, probably sometime in 2007, SC gave a landmark judgment, whereby the people of lower caste can become priest.
There is Cast discrimination. Discrimination is only supposed to be for their duties. No one is kept out of temples, none had faced untouchability. So, it's purely discrimination for alloting works. And to make a organised society.
I am not an idealist. For me, “supposed to be”, etc. matter very little. Once again, discrimination on the basis of caste duties, is same as discrimination on the basis of caste. These are not mutually exclusive. Besides, why should anybody be discriminated, in the first place, even if it is “for their duties.”

Regardless of whether temples (mandir) were prevalent during the times of MBH, lets take your point at face value. Gita is specific about duties of respective castes. Sudras, incidentally, get to serve only. Virtually everything can be denied to the lower caste, simply quoting that particular verse if your line of logic is applied, i.e. “discrimination is only supposed to be for their duties. ”

It is strange, really, that on one hand you seem to be denouncing discrimination on the basis of caste, but then in the same breath, you are justifying, discrimination on the basis of duties. Somehow, one form of discrimination is unacceptable to you, but another form is. How is that?
Wrong.... Drona didn't knew that ekalvya go this far. He said in his heart when ekalavya showed all his abilities after learning that, "if i knew you would be this great, i would have accepted your request to teach you and i would have thought you less than arjuna."

My grandmother told me that the reson why drona rejected is becuase he is raja guru. He can only teach to Kshatiryas and to be precise "ONLY TO THE CHILDREN OF THAT FAMILY"
I told you, MBH, at least the version most of us refer to, is very clear about Drona’s decision. You can read Section 134 of Sambhava Parva in Adi Parva. Allow me to quote relevant areas.

Drona’s promise to Arjuna:

“Drona, hearing the twang of his bowstring in the night, came to him, and clasping him, said, 'Truly do I tell thee that I shall do that unto thee by which there shall not be an archer equal to thee in this world.”

Drona’s fame spreads and in comes Ekalavya:

“And hearing reports of his skill, kings and princes, desirous of learning the science of arms, flocked to Drona by thousands. Amongst those that came there, O monarch, was a prince named Ekalavya, who was the son of Hiranyadhanus, king of the Nishadas (the lowest of the mixed orders). Drona, however, cognisant of all rules of morality, accepted not the prince as his pupil in archery, seeing that he was a Nishada who might (in time) excel all his high-born pupils.”

Ekalavya practices with Drona’s statue as his guru:

“…he made a clay-image of Drona, and began to worship it respectfully, as if it was his real preceptor, and practised weapons before it with the most rigid regularity. In consequence of his exceptional reverence for his preceptor and his devotion to his purpose, all the three processes of fixing arrows on the bowstring, aiming, and letting off became very easy for him.”

Ekalavya proves a point:

“Thereupon the Nishada prince, desirous of exhibiting his lightness of hand, sent seven arrows into its mouth (before it could shut it). The dog, thus pierced with seven arrows, came back to the Pandavas.”

Arjuna realizes Ekalavyas’ skills and complains to Drona:

“Arjuna, in particular, thinking all the while, O king, Ekalavya, saw Drona in private and relying upon his preceptor's affection for him, said, 'Thou hadst lovingly told me, clasping me, to thy bosom, that no pupil of thine should be equal to me. Why then is there a pupil of thine, the mighty son of the Nishada king, superior to me?

Drona asks for Gurudakshina:

“Then Drona, O king, addressed Ekalavya, saying, 'If, O hero, thou art really my pupil, give me then my fees.' On hearing these words, Ekalavya was very much gratified, and said in reply, 'O illustrious preceptor, what shall I give? Command me; for there is nothing, O foremost of all persons conversant with the Vedas, that I may not give unto my preceptor.' Drona answered, 'O Ekalavya, if thou art really intent on making me a gift, I should like then to have the thumb of thy right hand.”

Mission accomplished:

“Hearing these cruel words of Drona, who had asked of him his thumb as tuition-fee, Ekalavya, ever devoted to truth and desirous also of keeping his promise, with a cheerful face and an unafflicted heart cut off without ado his thumb, and gave it unto Drona. After this, when the Nishada prince began once more to shoot with the help of his remaining fingers, he found, O king, that he had lost his former lightness of hand. And at this Arjuna became happy, the fever (of jealousy) having left him.”

Nowhere, in that version, did Drona show any remorse or repentance for his act – not then not anytime later. If you want, you can check out the Sanskrit version of the section. It is available at the same website. Careful though, the English translation assigns the sections arbitrarily. So the sections may not tally.

Now there are several versions of MBH. The English translation is of the most popular version. I can’t say, you are wrong, because, the version you are referring to, may have such verses. However, I will appreciate it, if you can give a reference.

One more thing. Please keep grandmothers and grandfathers away from debates. They serve no purpose other than decreasing the quality of argument.
 

vamsi_krishna

Human Spambot
probably sometime in 2007, SC gave a landmark judgment, whereby the people of lower caste can become priest.

Of course, there are many dalits who have knowledge in vedas. No one objects to learn things. But when it is practical, no one hires dalit priest to one's marriage not even dalits.

You asked me to provide sources. I heard epics from my grandmother and grandfather and by following the speech of various the priest of my neighbouring temple. I told you what i have heard. My grandmother, grandfather, priest of the temple passed away.

you are saying that distribution of duties based on cast is bad. I fell that it's not. We should respect each others openion and leave this cast discrimnation in MBH from now.
 

vamsi_krishna

Human Spambot
I'm not a f@king moron to go on debating....

We should not F@king strech any thing untill it cutts off.

It just ruins the F@king relationships.

Pardon my language. I just completed watching PulpFiction for 3rd time:razz:
 

karnivore

in your face..
I heard epics from my grandmother and grandfather and by following the speech of various the priest of my neighbouring temple. I told you what i have heard.
Then you have a long long long long way yet to travel.

you are saying that distribution of duties based on cast is bad. I fell that it's not. We should respect each others openion..
Fair enough. We can agree to disagree.

..leave this cast discrimnation in MBH from now.
No can do.
 

montsa007

~Bulletproof Monk~
I firmly beleive in god, :).
He's the ultimate power which can create or destroy anything.
And those who feel if god exists why can't i see him?
If you can see god he won't be god anymore, he's invincible.
 

rishitells

Always in Dreams...
^^Yes, you can't see god, because he is in you. If you don't believe it, then just do a serious deep meditation if u can, then u will realize why we believe in god.

God is not too far from us, but we are always too slow to find him.
 

rhitwick

Democracy is a myth
If you don't believe it, then just do a serious deep meditation if u can
Please elaborate with step by step guidance to do "serious deep meditation"

then u will realize why we believe in god.
What will happen after successfully replicating the process. HE/SHE will show up? The color tone of world for our eyes will change (from Auto to Sepia, b/w, fluorescent etc).

God is not too far from us, but we are always too slow to find him.
U r always slow to reach something which is not there.

Its like u r told to meet me at "Rhitwick Chowk" in mumbai. Now how will u do that, if there is no such place in Mumbai. As there is no such place in Mumbai, I can't be there hence u can't meet me. It means I lied to u, to get rid of u :razz: (no offense meant to u on personal level, don't sue me!)
 
Top Bottom