Why, why do this to Ashok CVs? - Page 8

Originally posted by: Adishakti

@ Krystal of course feet will be at lower status than brain, even in terms of medical science, a person is considered dead if he goes brain dead, even if rest of the body is not, because brain controls the whole body, so it will always be at a higher status than chest, stomach and feet. But this does not mean in any way that feet is dirty in the Vedas life without feet is life of a disabled. It is the shoes which are considered dirty and have to be left outside the house or temple, not feet. KFeet worship is a form of respect in Hinduism, it is called as Pada Puja. The highest respect accorded to any human is Pada puja . People say heaven resides at the feet of mother

In Hinduism even the excretory organs not considered dirty, rather in Ayurveda they are addressed as the organs which keep the body pure and clean.

That I feel is the major problem here, distortion of meaning. Lower status does not mean lower respect. Just like "one who purifies the body " does not mean "dirty".

In Hinduism every work is deserves same respect just like in human body every organ is important for smooth functioning of the body, but since each organ does a different function their status will be different, that no way means that because brain controls the body you don't respect feet

Originally posted by: Adishakti

@ Krystal, in a family there are parents and children, the father and mother has the highest status in the house because of their age and experience of the world which gives them knowledge to allow them to take a right decision most of the time. But does that mean children should not be treated with respect, of course on subjects or issues which they lack knowledge their opinion will not be considered but you don't ill treat them or abuse them. They are an important part of the family and loved and respected.

Similarly in Vedas a person became a Brahmin when he acquired knowledge, and person became shudra when he lacked it. It is the knowledge which gets the respect not the Varna. Modern society twisted it upside down, instead of respecting knowledge, people started respecting Brahmins, even if they did not have he knowledge. That's when oppression started

Vedas were only compiled by vyas and, they existed much before that. Vedas accord Varna to a person on his merit. The merit can be determined by genes or upbringing, or both. But Varna was accorded on merit. It's only when nepotism entered in the society that problem started. Every father wanted to make sure his son inherited his wealth, a brahmin's wealth is his knowledge, a Kshatriyas his power and vaishya wealth is money. It didn't matter if the son didn't deserve it. Dronacharya is classic example. He knew his son ashwathhama didn't divyastra, but because he was his son, he gave him brahmashira but so that he could use it only once. Dronacharya used the same nepotism logic for Karna and eklavya too. It didn't matter if they both had the merit, their fathers were not Kshatriya Kings so they should not get Kshatriya power. Nepotism was already visible in Ramayana itself, Kaikeyi asked Rama to be exiled and Bharat coronated because she wanted power for her son, whether somebody else had higher claim on merit did not matter.

Vedas always take the side of merit otherwise there would be no valmiki or Ved vyasa (he was not a pure Brahmin but inter caste)

Originally posted by: adiana12

The Vedic religion, which has been given the name Hinduism by modern Europeans, is one of metaphors. And giving form to metaphors will leave one nowhere. The use of these metaphors was to symbolize and this has been the preferred norm by the Vedic people as symbols evolve and change and provided them the basis of keeping their way of life as a living and breathing entity. Yes times do come when these metaphors and symbolizations become base and corrupt but they have life and hence have the potential to revive and become great and compassionate again. And that is in the hands of the people who form the society and create the cultures. Vedas have always been inclusive because there was never a 'purna viraam' a full stop to them. They stated then, what Derrida said in the 1960s - that language is constructed, deconstructed and then reconstructed again - and by language he meant the language of symbols and of metaphors.

Originally posted by: Kaana

Can you share Kabirji's views on caste system?