jasmine Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 [color:"red"]my understanding of Thais not eating beef is that Rama V didn't eat meat....... [/color] This statement is new to me!!! :: For many Thais, cows and buffaloes are big animals and avoiding eating them is a part of believing in Buddhism. Also, many don't eat them because they come from families who use these animals once in farms such as my families from both parents, and these animals were considered friends who labored for us in farms. My grand father who owned many buffaloes told all his children not to eat their meat. When a buffalo died (old age) my grandfather gave the carcass to a temple, who in those days, would use the hides for ropes and bury the rest. I do eat beef and buffolo meat, rarely but do. However, many Thais are just greatful to have meat. I went to a wedding once (up-country) which bought a whole life cow and slaughtered it right there! I could not touch the meat because I still saw the cow's eyes when she was being killed! [color:"red"]Also, it seems that if you eat beef, you smell rather distinctive, [/color] I find this to be true. Jasmine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmine Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 [color:"red"]actually, the cast systhem, and even the untouchable sythem is far older than buddhism, a IMO hinduistic sect. [/color] True and Lord Buddha came from a royal caste. Jasmine :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmine Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 [color:"red"] I always love these guys that blow in from a hippy commune in Northern California and proceed to tell Thais about ''what Buddhism is all about, man". [/color] My sentiment, exactly But I have to behave, else I will be called "closed minds", no? I choose carefully in discussing religions and were called closed minds a few times. ::Jasmine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 True and Lord Buddha came from a royal caste. ------------------------ It's actually very uncertain when the system of untouchables became a pervading component of social relations in India. It was not part of the original 3 varnas (translated as caste by westerners) in Brahman litterature, and is outside the 4 main varnas of the Hindu system altogether. basically, untouchables were/are pariahs. There is no such thing as a royal caste. One could be a king and still not a brahman, or highest varna. Or a pauper and be a Brahman. Not 100% sure, but i think B was a Kshatriya, warrior caste/varna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 >>>There is no such thing as a royal caste.<<< he was a chatria. and he was from a royal family. >>>It was not part of the original 3 varnas (translated as caste by westerners) in Brahman litterature, and is outside the 4 main varnas of the Hindu system altogether. basically, untouchables were/are pariahs.<<< but mentioned in both the ramayana and the mahabarata. the untouchables are not completely outside of the 4 main varnas. they are somewhat part of the suddhra (the 4th cast), developed out of them, mainly because of their professions being polluting, both physically and spiritually. only some of the tribal untouchables are completely outside the varnas. even most muslims and christians are still considered part of the casts as their ancestors were part. and even in sikkhism which theoretically castism is not alowed the former cast is still very much considered in real life situations such as marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 he was a chatria. and he was from a royal family. -------------------------- Thanks for confirming that. That thing about the untouchables origins is very complex, I spent sometimes on it, thru the internet. But any reading confirms their pariah status was always outside of the varnas (which i read means colors, the darker the worse, as usual :onfire:), though they may have indeed come from the lowest level of castes, and losing their sudra status by belonging to a lower craft or occupation. The untouchables mentionned in the mahabarata were sudras and women. What was meant is that the brahmins could not be touched by them, actually. It also came to my attention that at some point in history the regime of castes was solidified to regiment these castes precisely. When? 500BC. Exactly when the Buddha was living and when Dr Ambekdar sees the first untouchables. Writings at that time were actually added to the hindu scriptures we talk about, I cite from one indian site (AOL search): "Around 500 B.C., still more writings were added to the Hindu scriptures. Their purpose was to regulate Varna as a rigid caste system, or social hierarchy. One hymn tells how four castes of people came from the head, arms, thighs and feet of the creator god, Brahma. The four castes were the Brahmins (priests); the Kshatriyas (warriors and nobles); Vaisyas (merchants and artisans); and Shudras (slaves). Each caste was then subdivided into hundreds of subcastes, arranged in order of rank. Only Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas were allowed to take full advantage of all that the Hindu religion has to offer, but the Shudras were not allowed to hear the Vedas or to use them to try to find salvation. Even lower on the social totem pole were the Untouchables who, until the twentieth century, were considered so low they were outside the caste system and, most of the time, were treated as sub-human." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmine Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 [color:"red"]There is no such thing as a royal caste. [/color] I beg to differ, I don't know how to spell the caste, "chak" something and Lord Buddha was from a royal family. Jasmine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmine Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 [color:"red"]There is no such thing as a royal caste. [/color] I beg to differ, I don't know how to spell the caste, "chak" something and Lord Buddha was from a royal family. Jasmine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Nobody said he was not from a royal family. But his caste (kshatriya, FlyW spelled it differently than i) was not the highest, though his family was a ruling family. To anyone interested, i found this site that talks at lentgh about the whole thing, and the relevance in modern times: http://adaniel.tripod.com/castes.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Have heard that the following is a point of contention among Buddists: Was Bhudda a Hindu? Obviously, he had some religious training as a child (as was/is the tradition), but I have heard many argue there is no way he could have been a Hindu. What is the common consensus on this topic? Also, was he born in Nepal or India? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.