Thai woman and religion...

[Guest]

Says pattaya127:

---

OK, i will be late for work again

.... :::

I read a very interesting theory as to where the untouchable cast came from in Indian history. very quick and imprecisely: Apparently, as India rejected Buddhism, its adherents were ostracized, and their cow-killing habits frowned upon, as we all know from the status of cows there. It started the downgrading of a whole side of the population.

Of course, over 2000 years, more than that went into untouchabeality status. But, maybe a reminder that laics of Buddhist leanings killed animals, and since they had to feed monks, may have been part of their diet. I strongly leant towards monks eating animal flesh in the B's time. But stand to be corrected, as no doubt, more inputs will come.

---

 

 

 

actually, the cast systhem, and even the untouchable sythem is far older than buddhism, a IMO hinduistic sect. hinduism is not a "religion" but a conglomerate of wildly differning sects, having more or less only one thing in common - the believe in the laws of dharma and karma. the term hinduism came from the brits, and a "hindu" is foremost a shivait, or a vaishnait, or a tantric, or one of the thousands of subsects.

the religious/philosophic base of the casts is the explanation of the brahmins being the head of brahma, the chatrias brahma's arms, the vaisha brahmas stomach, and the suddrahs bramas legs. the "untouchables" are due to their occupations spiritually polluting to the higher casts. but even members of the same brahmin family can be polluting to each other at specific days (well, only orthodox families are strict about that nowadays)

another, more historical, explanation is the event of the arians coming to india who occupied the upper three casts, while the dravidian original inhabitants became just suddhra, and untouchables.

the cast sythem is also in a constant flux, especially in the suddhra casts, where the hirarchal position can change due to the social importance of the profession alligned with the cast. a perfect example is the potter cast who once was a very high suddhra cast but went steadily down in the hirarchy with the event of plastic. in the old days every family had to destroy their pottery for cooking once a year and had to get new pottery. that does not happen anymore since the use of plastic and porcellain in the kitchens.

the untouchables are again separated in hindu and non hindu untouchables. the hindu untouchables have their own very hirarchal cast systhem. for example the cast responsible for cleaning toilets is way lower than the cast responsible for cleaning the streets. lower again are the casts who deal with animal carcasses and at the bottom in the hirarchy are the dom, which funnily enough are one of the richest casts in india. the dom are responsible for the smashan ghats, the burning grounds, deal with the human corpses, are the keepers of the flame. not even the richest hindu can have a proper funeral without the dom handing him the flame.

then you have the non-hindu untouchables who are mainly tribals.

the whole thing is highly complicated. especially the event of the larger cities, and the competing class systhem makes it a huge motherfucker of a mess, in many areas of india wars are fought over those issues, just read mela sen's biography on poolan devi, the bandit queen (don't watch the movie please - that is a disgrace!).

 

by the way, the vaishnaitic sects are a lot stronger on vegetarianism than the shivatic sects, who are a lot more permissive in most aspects. and some of the left handed tantrics are even making a culture of breaking every social and moral taboo, those saddhus, such as the aghori babbas, only allowed to accept food from untouchables, even going so far as consuming human flesh from the smashan ghats where they can be found (not many of them around though).

[pattaya127]

actually, the cast system, and even the untouchable sythem is far older than buddhism

-----------------------

the origins of untouchabilty are not so clear, if I read from Dr Ambedkar (one of the leaders who fought for independance and the end of hereditary inequality, beacme law minister and a founding father of the indian constitution), who wrote a book in 1948, called "the untouchables". He is the one who advanced the theory that i talked about. He may have been wrong, but going thru a few net pages about the whole thing, it would seem there is a lot of debate as to what consituted and originated untouchability. the dead meat handling factor seems recurring. I have no idea personally, just reading....

 

Also, we must be careful about the historical and linguistic (as you point yourself) distinction between brahmanism and hinduism. For the period of the Buddhas' life, i prefer to use Brahmanism. Now, of course, the Buddha came from that culture, but Buddhism is not a brahmanic sect, as Brahman rituals involved the sacrifice of animals. His Way was opposed to the sacrificial religions or sects that composed brahmanism, and definitely against the castes/varnas system that was at the foundation of Brahman sects, now hinduism.

[Guest]

>>>and definitely against the castes/varnas system that was at the foundation of Brahman sects, now hinduism.<<<

 

 

the shivatic sects are a lot less stiff about the cast sythem. there are many who do not support the cast systhem at all. not just buddhism.

[pattaya127]

In all likelihood, he not only knew about him but was Buddhist priest. His disappearance from the age of 13 until his return at age 29 1/2 was most likely spent in Buddhist monastaries. The book 'The Lost Years' by French researchers traces his movements from Bethlehem to Goa, then Madras and finally to Tibet where the ONLY written historical notation of this fellow is to be found in a Tibetan monastary.

------------------------

Sounds like he was the first tourist, his itinerary duplicates almost one for our contemporary backpackers (nepal for Tibet though)

Buddhist priest, that i think is far-fetched. If the research is valid, i can see that he practiced meditation, but how much more would we know. hey, that's cool with me if he was. Why in the hell did he come back, anyway?That cross thing: talk about Lasha blues!!!!!! ::

 

 

 

[Guest]

>>>Sounds like he was the first tourist, <<<

 

 

not really, in the antique there were a lot of connections, trade and diplomatic, between the orient and occident. the kingdom of hampi had regular ambassadors of the greek city states. also, the radical philosophies of diogenes had certain similarities with the at that time upcoming saddhusects in india, which leads somewhat to the conclusion that there might have been some exchanges culturally as well.

a proof of the incredible trade connections are glass and stone beads - in south thailand for example beads of roman manufacture are found.

[pattaya127]

there are many who do not support the cast systhem at all. not just buddhism.

-------------------------

Possibly, but for the period we talk about and therafter, Buddhism is no Brahmanic offspring. I mean in terms of who/what you turn your gaze/prayers/reverence to. Which for Hindus can mean Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva (multiply by 900 million), and for a true Buddhist inward ("God, no God, what the hell do we need to know?"). I also think that the main difference is the belief in Atma (soul, ultimately One to be re-united with) for hindus and none for Buddhists.

Thoroughly enjoying this exchange of views. Glad to have you here .

[pattaya127]

not really, in the antique there were a lot of connections, trade and diplomatic, between the orient and occident.

------------------------

Absolutely. But this guy, i have a feeling, went with only the clothes on his back, without even the hope of becoming an english teacher in the far east!

I think it was Diogenes who answered Alexander the great who, standing next to the seated Elder, asked him if there was anything he wanted: "yes, go, you are blocking my sun!"

[Guest]

Hi guys,

 

When I wrote this post, I have no ideas that it attracted such a wonderful and scholary discussion about Buddhism. There were so many new facts that i am just now aware of.

 

And Markle wrote that:

 

"...someone needs to rexamine their own level of openmindeness....," you are right Markle and I do own you a cold one.

 

Thank you for all of your responds ..... csm

[jasmine]

[color:"red"] however, in Thailand, the monks are allowed to consume meat and that is definitely contrasting to Buddha's teaching. [/color]

 

The monks canNOT demand what to be given to him as an offer. It is in Buddhism scriptures that Lord Buddha teachings was that whatever the monks are offerred, they must survive on such food. However, it is also known to most Buddhists not to offer some certain meat such as dog meat to monks.

 

I feel that you have misunderstand in that context. Actually, there was an article in a magazine called "Kwanruen", written by a doctor on nutritions for monks. The article cautioned the people to give more nutritious food (with recipes) to monks because these monks must eat what being offerred and man older ones start developing high cholestoerol and diabetes from the food. It also listed what meat the Lord Buddha said not to consume (knowingly). Many strict monks will not even look at food as a seperate dish, they mix everything together.

 

May I say also, that, not all Thais know about Buddhism to discuss with open minds(your words).

 

Jasmine ::

[jasmine]

[color:"red"]I talked to some Monks one day as they were fishing. Hmmm.... guys aren't you sworn no to kill anything.?

[/color]

 

These monks should be reported! ::

 

Mind you, many monks enter the monkhood from convenience, noth faith.

 

Jasmine