1. There has definitely been religious literature, but saying that > without religion literaure loses its spirit is not only being > chauvinistic but also being plain ignorant. Thirukkural is still > amazing literature without the first ten lines, if you can't > appreciate it, I really have nothing more to say.
If you think thirukural has religion only in its first ten kurals then you havent read it fully.Thirukural is full of vedic concepts and hindu gods.even in inbathupal lord thirumal is mentioned as "tamarai kannan".Tirukural is full of vedic concepts like yagnas,pithru dharma,panchagni and so on.
There is no religion in the sonnets of Shakespeare or the verses of Shelley or Keats I spoke only about tamil.Not any other language.
> 2. I am not accusing you of anything. I said "I am not very tolerant of religious conservatism". Its me, not you. I simply cannot understand people who take literally whatever is said in some book ages ago and use that to justify 'anything they want'(not everything, mind you. Even tirukural was written ages ago.It is hailed as tamil vedam.Whatever is there in veda is in tirukural also.A book is old or new doesnt matter.how we can benefit from it matters.Various vedic concepts like respecting parents,pathivratha dharma are still guiding hindu society.Somebooks and concepts have no age.
"Nowadays, since its not politically correct, we will let low castes enter the temple though its mentioned in the same holy books but but we will agree with the book on other kinds of nonsense like 'how to not let certain biologically impure actresses into the temple'). I just find it interesting that they are not capable of applying their (God-given?) brians and for some reason, their standard of comparison is some other religion which does the same thing! As I said, I find it difficult to converse with people like that, so its my fault; I am not accusing you of anything"
In which veda has it been said that low castes should be prevented from entering the temple?when US was at its height of slavery,slavery was justified by invoking bible.Does that mean that bible is to be blamed?No.Criminals use religion as a mask in all religions.It happened in hinduism also.Thirupanalvar was a dalit and he was carried by sri rangam bhramins in their shoulders as a punishment for their not allowing him into temple.
why should my religion compare itself with other religions and import their standards?we have no such necessity.we dont see any such imitable qualities in any other religion which isnt there in ours.Hinduism has nothing to learn from anybody.It is the guru for the whole universe.
"Food for thought: Couldn't resist this one - One man one wife was also a ramayan age standard.Do we give it up since its old?No.'One woman, five husbands is Mahabharatha standards' - why don't we start living that way from now on?"
polyandry has been allowed under special circumstances in hinduism.Polygyny and polygamy are also allowed under special circumstances.monogomy is the general norm and polygamy is a special norm valid in ceratain occasions.what is the big deal here?I dont understand.when a society can allow polygyny whats wrong in allowing polyandry too?
********************************************************************* Thirukural is full of vedic concepts and hindu gods.even in inbathupal lord thirumal is mentioned as "tamarai kannan".Tirukural is full of vedic concepts like yagnas,pithru dharma,panchagni and so on. *********************************************************************
1) Kural never preaches casteism. 2) Kural treats all the lives in same way. i.e. There is no animal considered as holy animal. 3) There is "tamarai kannaan ulagam" in 1103rd kural. If it is taken as thirumal, he is clearly not praising thirumal. 4) It treats all the people in same way. In vedas its not the case.
********* Literature devoid of religion loses its spirit.Seperate religion from tamil literature and see what remains.Nothing. ******************
things. It is just how u look at the things.
I am a hindu by birth and living in TN. I can see how a fellow man is treated by the name of caste. Everybody agrees that casteism is a bad thing. But how many people have given up the caste? Still majority of people r proud to identify themself with their caste name. Still casteism plays a major role in majority of hindus life. I cant be proud to call myself as hindu when I see a fellow man suffers by the name of religion. In my opinion religion just divides people.
Arutholilor indicates bhramins.Vedas called them as "shatkarma nirathar" meaning bhramins have 6 duties.Valluvar translated it as arutholilor(people with 6 duties).He also says "NOOL (vedas) marappar" indicating that bhramins forgeting vedas is an undesirable thing.
what do these kurals mean?
2) Kural treats all the lives in same way. i.e. There is no animal considered as holy animal.
Valluvar indicates what are the consequences of a bad ruler as follows.He starts of with cows "Aa payan kundrum" and continues it with "arutholilor nool marappar" indicating that the greatest bad thing that can happen when a king is bad is "cows reducing their milk secretion".The second badest thing is bhramins forgeting vedas.He doesnt even talk about law and order here.These two things concern him more than anything.See how he puts cows even before bhramins and vedas.
3) There is "tamarai kannaan ulagam" in 1103rd kural. If it is taken as thirumal, he is clearly not praising thirumal.
Is he not?"Tamarai kannan"--see the words.He is not just praising krishna.He is simply adoring the beauty of the eyes of narayana in a poetic way.In all other sangam literatures narayana is called as hari and thirumal.But here valluvar cajoles him like a kid.Why did not valluvar just say "thiruaml vaal ulagu" or even shortly as "vaikunda"?I only see valluvar konjufying krishna as his kid in this kural.
Even leaving apart this sentimental view of mine that kural says "Is the world of hari better than this woman?".Here too i see him glorifying vaikunda.Even kambar used this technique.When bharatha is about to jump in fire kousalya stops him and says "I can live withour Ram,but not without you.PALAKODI RAMANUM unakku inayagan".See how kambar hailes baratha as.Ramayanam is about rama.The book itself contains ramas name.Rama is none other than thirumal.Kambar is the staunchest devotee of narasimma.Such a man hails bharatha as "palakodi ramanum unakku inayagan".Does this mean that kambar is not praising rama?when you priase somebody you will compare them only with the thing you value the most.For kambar it was ram.For valluvar it was narayana.
4) It treats all the people in same way. In vedas its not the case.
Is it so?Please show such vedic quotes where it says people are inferior?
things. It is just how u look at the things.""
Go nowhere.See thirukural.He sung 3 concepts aram,porul and inbam.He placed aram in front of everything else.And how does he start even the arathupal?He starts off with praying to god.And which is the god whom he worships first?Its his mother.Then he proceeds to worship his father.Then in the next 9 kurals he worships god.Then he narrates aram in the next chapters.
He wanted us to worship god first,seek aram next,seek porul afterwards and seek inbam at the end.This is his hierarchy.If you are being selective in following him its not his mistake.
" I am a hindu by birth and living in TN. I can see how a fellow man is treated by the name of caste. Everybody agrees that casteism is a bad thing. But how many people have given up the caste? Still majority of people r proud to identify themself with their caste name. Still casteism plays a major role in majority of hindus life. I cant be proud to call myself as hindu when I see a fellow man suffers by the name of religion.In my opinion religion just divides people."""
what is the thing that unites people then?Marx tried it by removing all hierarchies in the society and he failed badly and his followers established the most ruthless regime in the process.Hierarchies will not disappear just by you wishing them to disappear.Saying "religion divides people" is fashionable nowadays.Income,age,sex,occupation,language,country..so many things do the same thing.Why not remove all this?
Casteism is not in hinduism.In vedas you wont see the name of any caste.In imposed varnas on the base of the job you do and said "vasudeva kudumbakam" and "sathyam ekam vipra," meaning "god is one,whole universe is his family" which was later sung by thirumular as "onre kulam,oruvane devan" and which later was adapated as the motto of DMK.So DMK in end hailed vedic concept as its motto.How funny can things become.
********* > 3) There is "tamarai kannaan ulagam" in 1103rd kural. If it is > taken as thirumal, he is clearly not praising thirumal. > > Is he not?"Tamarai kannan"--see the words. **************** It is written as tamarai kannaan...not kannan. But i dont know whether there is some different meaning between these words. I have to clarify this with some tamil scholar.
************************************** > Even leaving apart this sentimental view of > mine that kural says "Is the world of hari better than this > woman?".Here too i see him glorifying vaikunda.Even kambar used this > technique.When bharatha is about to jump in fire kousalya stops him > and says "I can live withour Ram,but not without you.PALAKODI > RAMANUM unakku inayagan".See how kambar hailes baratha as.Ramayanam > is about rama.The book itself contains ramas name.Rama is none other > than thirumal.Kambar is the staunchest devotee of narasimma.Such a > man hails bharatha as "palakodi ramanum unakku inayagan".Does this > mean that kambar is not praising rama?when you priase somebody you > will compare them only with the thing you value the most.For kambar > it was ram.For valluvar it was narayana. ************************************************* Well, can u please show some other kural where valluvar directly praises narayana or vaikundam?
************************************************** > 4) It treats all the people in same way. In vedas its not the case. > > Is it so?Please show such vedic quotes > where it says people are inferior? ********************************************************
Some quotes from atharva veda here,
*************** IX. PRAYERS AND IMPRECATIONS IN THE INTEREST OF THE BRAHMANS.
V, 19. Imprecation against the oppressors of Brahmans.
1. Beyond measure they waxed strong, just fell short of touching the heavens. When they infringed upon Bhrigu they perished, the Sriñgaya Vaitahavyas. 2. The persons who pierced Brihatsâman, the descendant of Angiras, the Brâhmana--a ram with two rows of teeth, a sheep devoured their offspring. 3. They who spat upon the Brâhmana, who desired tribute from him, they sit in the middle of a pool of blood, chewing hair. 4. The cow of the Brahman, when roasted, as far as she reaches does she destroy the lustre of the kingdom; no lusty hero is born (there). 5. A cruel (sacrilegious) deed is her slaughter, her meat, when eaten, is sapless; when her milk is drunk, that surely is accounted a crime against the Fathers. 6. When the king, weening himself mighty, desires to destroy the Brâhmana, then royal power is dissipated, where the Brâhmana is oppressed. 7. Becoming eight-footed, four-eyed, four-eared, four-jawed, two-mouthed, two-tongued, she dispels the rule of the oppressor of the Brahman. 8. That (kingdom) surely she swamps, as water a leaking ship; misfortune strikes that kingdom, in which they injure a Brâhmana. 9. The trees chase away with the words: 'do not come within our shade,' him who covets the wealth that belongs to a Brâhmana, O Nârada! 10. King Varuna pronounced this (to be) poison, prepared by the gods: no one who has devoured the cow of a Brâhmana retains the charge of a kingdom. 11. Those full nine and ninety whom the earth did cast off, because they had injured the offspring of a Brâhmana, were ruined irretrievably. 12. The kûdî-plant (Christ's thorn) that wipes away the track (of death), which they fasten to the dead, that very one, O oppressor of Brahmans, the gods did declare (to be) thy couch. 13. The tears which have rolled from (the eyes of) the oppressed (Brahman), as he laments, these very ones, O oppressor of Brahmans, the gods did assign to thee as thy share of water. 14. The water with which they bathe the dead, with which they moisten his beard, that very one, O oppressor of Brahmans, the gods did assign to thee as thy share of water. 15. The rain of Mitra and Varuna does not moisten the oppressor of Brahmans; the assembly is not complacent for him, he does not guide his friend according to his will.
Well, why these things r not for a normal human being? Why it is only for brahmans? Isnt it partial?
*********************************** > Casteism is not in hinduism.In vedas you wont see > the name of any caste.In imposed varnas on the base of the job you > do and said "vasudeva kudumbakam" and "sathyam ekam vipra," > meaning "god is one,whole universe is his family" which was later > sung by thirumular as "onre kulam,oruvane devan" ************************************
I have refrained from entering into the current "debate" till now. However, I would like to suggest that if "religion" is being discussed, then we do it as a whole and not just focussed on Hinduism. For example, I agree caste is bad and that it is a blight on Hinduism. Great.. However, is it any worse than other religions dividing the entire world into "believers" and "heathens/kafirs"?
The problem I have with the DK/DMK crowd, is that all their criticism is about Hinduism. They don't seem to extend their arguments to other religions. A possible reason could be that Hindus tend to shrug off criticisms about their religion whereas the Muslims and Xtians might react in a more reactionary manner (I AM putting it very mildly here).
There was this whole issue of people from other religions not being allowed to enter temples. Heck, if you go to Saudi Arabia, you are not even allowed to worship any of your gods in their country. How about that?
"It is written as tamarai kannaan...not kannan. But i dont know whether there is some different meaning between these words. I have to clarify this with some tamil scholar"
Kannan and kannan both have no different meanings.
"Well, can u please show some other kural where valluvar directly praises narayana or vaikundam?"
Who does he then praise in the first ten kurals? After that everywhere he praises various vedic concepts.This indicates that initially he worshipped only vedic god.And once it is clear that he worshipped a vedic god it doesnt matter whether it is vishnu or shiva or ganesh.Since vedas clearly say "sathyam ekam vipra"(god is one)
""Some quotes from atharva veda here, Well, why these things r not for a normal human being? Why it is only for brahmans? Isnt it partial?""
If you understand that bhramins is not the name of a caste and is the name of saints it becomes simple.Many people like viswamithra(ksathriya),vyasa(son of a fisherwoman),valmigi(hunter and thief)became bhramins by meditation and prayer.In later days it got twisted into castes by birth.
"""1. Now, therefore, we will declare the acts productive of merit which form part of the customs of daily life, as they have been settled by the agreement (of those who know the law).
2. The authority (for these duties) is the agreement of those who know the law,
3. And (the authorities for the latter are) the Vedas alone.
4. (There are) four castes--Brâhmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sûdras.
5. Amongst these, each preceding (caste) is superior by birth to the one following.
6. (For all these), excepting Sûdras and those who have committed bad actions, (are ordained) the initiation, the study of the Veda, and the kindling of""""
Where did you get this?See whats written in bhagavad geetha about castes.
In sloka (IV.13) Lord Krishna says: "Chaturvarnyma mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhagsah" i.e. four orders of society created by Me according to their Guna (qualities/behaviour) and Karma (profession/work/efforts). Lord Krishna does not say guna and karma of previous life. In sloka (XVIII.41) Lord Krishna says "Brahmana Kshatriya visham sudranam chaparamtapa, karmani pravibhaktani svabhavaprabhavaigunaih."
It means people have been grouped into four classes according to their present life karma (profession/work) and svabhava (behaviour). `The division of labour into four categories - Brahman, Ksatriya,Vaishya and Sudra - is also based on the Gunas inherent in peoples'nature`. Had this division been based on birth, Lord Krishna would have naturally used phrase 'Janmani pravibhaktani' in the very shloka (XVIII.41).
In sloka (XVIII.42), Lord Krishna prescribes duties (karma) which one must do in order to qualify as a Brahman i.e. among other duties (karma), he must have studied Vedas and must teach Vedas to others. Thus, if a person has neither studied Veda, nor teaches Veda to others, he is not a Brahman.
Brahman categorisation is an acquirement through efforts like present day degrees of MA, MBBS etc. A teacher's son cannot be called a teacher by birth, a General's son is not a general by birth, son of an engineer is not an engineer by birth, son of an IFS officer cannot be called an IFS officer by birth.
""So, according to ur defenition majority of higher caste and other non-dalit people who represent hindu religion were(are) criminals. Isnt it?""
Whoever twisted vedas and enslaved people on basis of birth is a ignorant person who would have paid for that sin to god.
Just like how the Kanchi seer's arrest is an 'international conspiracy',all facts will be twisted(oops, interpreted) to one's convenience regardless of any logic(as we have seen already); so imo, its just a waste of our time to continue this discussion. So this is a definite fullstop!
Arun,
Just one more time. No one in this group is for even a minute claiming that every other religion is better then Hinduism. Are there things that are wrong with Hinduism? Yes. Are there things that are wrong with other religions? Yes
So shall we blindly compare other religions or look forward and do the right thing? Up to us.
> Arun, > > Just one more time. No one in this group is for even a minute > claiming that every other religion is better then Hinduism. Are > there things that are wrong with Hinduism? Yes. > Are there things that are wrong with other religions? Yes > > So shall we blindly compare other religions or look forward and do > the right thing? Up to us. > > Veena
Nobody will have a problem if the ills are highlighted in a positive manner - with a view to changing for the better
but do you honestly believe this is happening
the criticism is mainly led by groups which are interested in the demise of hinduism not in its betterment
If you understand that bhramins is not the name of a caste and is the name of saints it becomes simple.Many people like viswamithra(ksathriya),vyasa(son of a fisherwoman),valmigi(hunter and thief)became bhramins by meditation and prayer.In later days it got twisted into castes by birth.
Lord Krishna does not say guna and karma of previous life. In sloka (XVIII.41) Lord Krishna says "Brahmana Kshatriya visham sudranam chaparamtapa, karmani pravibhaktani svabhavaprabhavaigunaih."
But the same Krishna was quiet when Karna was insulted as Suthra Putra inspite of Knowing the truth.
Drona was deemed to be a great brahman but he took the fingers off Ekaleva after refusing to teach him because he was not a Kshathriya and when he learnt the tricks by watching....this was to prevent any competetion for arjuna his favorite pupil.
The learned Vidhura was never respected as a brahman becuse he was born to a sudra...he is even termed suthra puthra.....
Kripacharya and Drona both refused karna permission to challenge arjuna because he was a sudra if the social strata was based on present birth and actions and there was no one as a ble as karna to be called Kshatriya...
So all these examples are from Vyasa's mahabharat and though he says something in the voice of Krishna as Bhagvat Gita..its not what he has written in the book....
birth, son of an engineer is not an engineer by birth, son of an IFS officer cannot be called an IFS officer by birth.
But Drona's son aswathama was given all the liberties of a brahman by birth??!!!
How does kanchi seer figure in here?If he did a murder he is answerable to god and law.If he did it and escapes from law,he cannot escape from god.If he is a real advaithi he will treat prison and mutt as the same place and wont worry about anything others say.
I still am waiting to hear what are the bad aspects in hindu vedas.If you blame the later day practices of people of kaliyuga on vedas,Im sorry.Its like saying the acts of current day americans were instigated by bible.Totally wrong.
Agreed. It is just that in our Indian "secular" context religious criticism is usually always "Hindu" criticism. If the discussion is general and examines all religions under the same critical light, I have absolutely no problems.
There are any number of things wrong with all religions (maybe more in the observance and practice of the religions than in the religions themselves). I strongly believe in taking the "good" from all things, regardless of their origins. :-)
With regards to the Kanchi seer, I agree with Cho's statement. The govt. would not have taken the step of actually arresting him unless it had some rather clinching evidence against him. Let the law take its course I say.
Having said that, I just hope that the government is consistent when it comes to dealing with important personages from other "minority" communities when such cases arise. (Of course you can see from this that I am all for the Uniform Civil Code but that's a discussion for another day I suppose!)
=******************************************** > > """1. Now, therefore, we will declare the acts productive of merit > which > form part of the customs of daily life, as they have been settled > by the agreement (of those who know the law). > > 2. The authority (for these duties) is the agreement of those who > know the law, > > 3. And (the authorities for the latter are) the Vedas alone. > > 4. (There are) four castes--Brâhmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and > Sûdras. > > 5. Amongst these, each preceding (caste) is superior by birth to the > one following. > > 6. (For all these), excepting Sûdras and those who have committed > bad actions, (are ordained) the initiation, the study of the Veda, > and the kindling of"""" > > Where did you get this?See whats written in bhagavad > geetha about castes. > ***************************************************
Well, what u r saying is, hinduism never had casteism. Some people manipulated it. Consider it as a case, how many people manipulated it?1, 100 ,1000 or 100000??? Bcos it has been preached and it has been and is being followed in each and every corner of india for 1000s of years. I am sorry to say this again , again and again.
In these 2000-3000 years, I can see that only very few (ramanujar and whoelse??????) religious scholars raised their voice against casteism. If majority of brahmanas( I mean only the saints) raised their voice against casteism,then it could never existed.
And it is very easy to say that, no no my religion never preached any bad thing, only 99% of people who followed my religion got confused a bit for 3000 years and still 80-90% people r confused.
It is very easy to be proud of a religion by being born in upper caste. Its not same for a lower caste (dalit) guy. It just gives a bitter taste. If u people feel that i am wrong and I am just making some buzz, then I wont talk abt this again.
I am all for Uniform Civil Code too - it makes absolute sense to me. There are def number of things wrong with religion(AND the way its practised) and regardless of the religion, its out duty to push for reform wherever necessary.(All over the place if you ask me) :)
If you read what I wrote before, you will prob realise that I said despite facts brought up in the forum by quite a few people, we still seem to hear abt 'interesting' interpretations of abstract texts and this will keep going on regardless of whatever evidence one brings to the table. To find out about good/bad aspects of any religion, texts or followers(after all, a religion is only as good as its followers), all you need is a widely available search technology called Google and an open, questioning mind(no colored glasses, mind you). As the second part of that requirement is not forthcoming, I believe this is a complete waste of my time and yours. Peace.