pizzalot
3rd July 2006, 06:21 AM
"If you follow Manu Dharma, you will take a better birth next time. A person with highest net credit of Dharma will take birth as a Brahmin, and others will take birth as Kshatrya and Vysyas and in worst cases as Sudras, Women and Animals, who will be owned by the Kshatyas as anyother property.
Movement from Sudra to Brahmin may happen, when the Sudra adheres and behaves according to the Manu Dharma. But it seldom happens in the same birth. It is in his next birth that it happens.
When the Sudra, Women or animals do not adhere to the Manu Dharma, whip rather than pursuation seems to be the best prescribed choice. So they are not left to their choice of facing the consequences until next birth. Punishment does not seem to wait until they take the next birth."
This is the summary of societal administration prescribed by some sacred Hindu Scriptures. The theory is attributed to a guy called Manu and is credited with the fame of being a progenitor of the Hindus (like Noah for the West)
The cult which preached his theory had come-up with a culture which calls for "unquestionable respect" across all lines. It starts with Son obeying the Father for whatever foolishness he possessed, Wife obeying the Husband inspite of all his cruelty to her, People obeying their King however greedy he was, and everyone obeying the Priest however lustful he was. The tool seems to be "unquestioned bhakti" and "unquestioned bhavya" along the hierarchy. A kid who does not demonstrate this attribute is duly corrected at home, else he/she will be "corrected" by the society. With this Bhakti tool coupling to the Manu Smriti, implementation and adherance was not a problem.
Let us make this thread very democratic.
First, is my understanding of the Manu Smriti correct ? I have ample evidence to quote from my side supporting the above glimpse of the verses. What have you got to contradict me ?
If you do agree with me, what do you think were the consequences ? How has it helped or deterioted India ? Of course everyone knows it resulted in Caste system. But I am interested to know exactly how it helped or deteriorated India as a nation.
Let us see if any good had resulted at all. We know it was bad for people who were affected by it for 2000 years. But how has it affected India as a whole ? Or has it helped India ? Let us see from all angles.
My feeling is this guy Manu gave a wrong social theory which started to weaken India the day he uttered them. I do not give credit to such loser as a progenerator of all the people today. If at all any, he should have been the progenerator of a few people whose welfare his theory favored. So I have a feeling that he is a universal villain. Or is he really so ? What do you think ?
He was successful in creating general hatred towards anyone who suffered instead of helping them because they were "sinners" after all. If a man is seen beating his wife in the street, it is acceptable because he owns her after all.
The desease affected people were left uncared. Foreign missionaries came to India and nursed them, but we did not. Simply helping suffers is seen as a taboo.
Education to the Sudras were forbidden. The punishment for hearing or learning the Vedas is death. They were seen as liabilities to the society. It was the foreiners who cared and provided education for them. They proved us that with little care and love anyone can be converted as an asset from liability.
Some sought refuge through conversions. But it looks like their problems are not solved even after conversion. Now there is even a more convienient answer for hating them and so the hatred continues.
There seems to be an Eternal Hatred towards the Weak and an Eternal Love towards the Powerful. The Badshahs and Sultan Muslims were loved, respected and praised, but the Sudra muslims of today are hated.
When we see Royal Palaces right in the midst of the desert and poverty, we take pride instead of shame. If we hear of Temples that were looted by foreigners, we stop at condemning the foreigners but not go on to address the moral question of how such temples and their wealth existed amidst poverty and slavery.
I hope this thread addresses from all angles and not just blind patriotism or religious fanaticism.
Movement from Sudra to Brahmin may happen, when the Sudra adheres and behaves according to the Manu Dharma. But it seldom happens in the same birth. It is in his next birth that it happens.
When the Sudra, Women or animals do not adhere to the Manu Dharma, whip rather than pursuation seems to be the best prescribed choice. So they are not left to their choice of facing the consequences until next birth. Punishment does not seem to wait until they take the next birth."
This is the summary of societal administration prescribed by some sacred Hindu Scriptures. The theory is attributed to a guy called Manu and is credited with the fame of being a progenitor of the Hindus (like Noah for the West)
The cult which preached his theory had come-up with a culture which calls for "unquestionable respect" across all lines. It starts with Son obeying the Father for whatever foolishness he possessed, Wife obeying the Husband inspite of all his cruelty to her, People obeying their King however greedy he was, and everyone obeying the Priest however lustful he was. The tool seems to be "unquestioned bhakti" and "unquestioned bhavya" along the hierarchy. A kid who does not demonstrate this attribute is duly corrected at home, else he/she will be "corrected" by the society. With this Bhakti tool coupling to the Manu Smriti, implementation and adherance was not a problem.
Let us make this thread very democratic.
First, is my understanding of the Manu Smriti correct ? I have ample evidence to quote from my side supporting the above glimpse of the verses. What have you got to contradict me ?
If you do agree with me, what do you think were the consequences ? How has it helped or deterioted India ? Of course everyone knows it resulted in Caste system. But I am interested to know exactly how it helped or deteriorated India as a nation.
Let us see if any good had resulted at all. We know it was bad for people who were affected by it for 2000 years. But how has it affected India as a whole ? Or has it helped India ? Let us see from all angles.
My feeling is this guy Manu gave a wrong social theory which started to weaken India the day he uttered them. I do not give credit to such loser as a progenerator of all the people today. If at all any, he should have been the progenerator of a few people whose welfare his theory favored. So I have a feeling that he is a universal villain. Or is he really so ? What do you think ?
He was successful in creating general hatred towards anyone who suffered instead of helping them because they were "sinners" after all. If a man is seen beating his wife in the street, it is acceptable because he owns her after all.
The desease affected people were left uncared. Foreign missionaries came to India and nursed them, but we did not. Simply helping suffers is seen as a taboo.
Education to the Sudras were forbidden. The punishment for hearing or learning the Vedas is death. They were seen as liabilities to the society. It was the foreiners who cared and provided education for them. They proved us that with little care and love anyone can be converted as an asset from liability.
Some sought refuge through conversions. But it looks like their problems are not solved even after conversion. Now there is even a more convienient answer for hating them and so the hatred continues.
There seems to be an Eternal Hatred towards the Weak and an Eternal Love towards the Powerful. The Badshahs and Sultan Muslims were loved, respected and praised, but the Sudra muslims of today are hated.
When we see Royal Palaces right in the midst of the desert and poverty, we take pride instead of shame. If we hear of Temples that were looted by foreigners, we stop at condemning the foreigners but not go on to address the moral question of how such temples and their wealth existed amidst poverty and slavery.
I hope this thread addresses from all angles and not just blind patriotism or religious fanaticism.