Why, why do this to Ashok CVs? - Page 5

@krystal. Would love to read it.

Originally posted by: rohini55

Dalit is a later coinage. I don't say untouchables because the term is derogatory. But there were outcasts even in our mythologies.

The Eklavys story for example shows discrimination is not a latter-day distortion.

That said I'm still curious to know the answer my question: what is the Varnic or primary quality of a Shudra?

You have defined it for Brahmins and Kshatriyas but not for Shudras.



One may or may not like to use upper and lower castes but that is the way it works and has worked in practice -- today, yesterday and from centuries ago.

Vaisya would be a combo of rajasic and tamasic. And Shudras tamasic.
Yes I agree this the caste issue is there for so long.

How ironic. Sattva is pure, non-violent, goodness. Rajas is passion, acquisition and Tamas is darkness, violence, destruction.

At least that is how I understand the Varna attributes. Aren't the attributes themselves, as they are originally defined, extremely discriminatory?

The irony comes because the Shudras are the ones who bear the most violence and are discriminated against.

I for one am glad that Ashok was shown at least tangentially to ask these questions by the CVs.

Originally posted by: rohini55

How ironic. Sattva is pure, non-violent, goodness. Rajas is passion, acquisition and Tamas is darkness, violence, destruction.

At least that is how I understand the Varna attributes. Aren't the attributes themselves, as they are originally defined, extremely discriminatory?

The irony comes because the Shudras are the ones who bear the most violence and are discriminated against.

I for one am glad that Ashok was shown at least tangentially to ask these questions by the CVs.

In my post I have mentioned varna is based on one's own nature. No attributes are added to a varna.
Tamasic is not destruction violence etc. it is comparatively dull in my understanding.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

Precisely. That's where all Shastrarth logic falls flat.😆

Btw,the Veda writers were not so innocent actually, they in a way laid the path for untouchabiity to develop. "Brahmins emerged from the head of Brahma, Kshatriyas from the chest (or arms,I don't remember well), Vaishyas from thighs and Shudras from the feet. (Purusha Shukta).

Originally posted by: adiana12

Sandhya, this was definitely for 12th October - if you understand what I mean 😉

Originally posted by: Kaana

Thanks Capri for your kind words.
I not sure Buddhism foundation is going to stem from such as these. I think his wife and Kaljnga has a role to play in bringing Buddhism in his life.

Originally posted by: Sandhya.A

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Sanskrit is such an intriguing and complex and beautiful language that a single word can be interpreted in many ways. 'Emerged' need not mean emerged per se. I think the sentence more deals with the nature of the work. Brahmins - thinking so head, Kshatriyas protection so arms, Vaishyas trade and travel so thighs and Shudras the manual work so feet.</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">And we cannot view or judge things by current standards. Like polygamy it was the order of those days with its pluses and minuses. The biggest minus was that it paved way for awful social discrimination. Just because it assumed evil proportions later its origins cannot be condemned. It is like blaming Dalton for Nagasaki and Hiroshima.</font>

Thanks Sands. Besutifully said. I actually myself did not want to get into big discussions on this thread so I am limiting my comments. This is a very sensitive and a topic of big concern per say. Varnas have been distorted big way and have been given a different meaning altogether. It has been ghostly and disgusting to the core in later days. And the sentiments are fair.

Originally posted by: Kaana

OMG my head is reeling in 100 wys now!
As always you bring a smile with your post.
Thanks for jumping in. Missed you for few days.