Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jack Knave on August 17, 2015, 03:20:56 PM
-
Something I read recently which implied that the East, over the last coupler thousand years or so has been more open and less prudish about sex etc. than the Occidental, with its repressed attitudes as conveyed in religion especially the historical one of Christianity.
Can anyone confirm or rebuke this general notion?
-
Off the top of my head you could compare the exterior of umpteen Hindu temples and texts such as the Kama Sutra and the Koka Shastra with historical Christianity's attitude toward the body and anything sexual.
Hinduism didn't give us the Flagellants and mortification of the flesh, did it?
-
It's certainly been believed. I remember in Graham Greene's 'The Quiet American' where the main character (Fowler), raves about Vietnamese women, and their sexual proclivities, or maybe, pliability. Trouble is, I don't know how much is the result of male fantasies about Asian women, or you might say, orientalism.
-
Off the top of my head you could compare the exterior of umpteen Hindu temples and texts such as the Kama Sutra and the Koka Shastra with historical Christianity's attitude toward the body and anything sexual.
What I read did bring this to my mind but wasn't sure if this was from selective biases of our recent culture to focus on such things. The Kama Sutra I think was written around 200AD and contains much more than just being a sex manual. So I was wondering if this perceived outlook from our Western eyes of the East was actually true of the East over many millennia.
-
This is the problem with orientalism, which is the Western fantasy about the East, and goes back a long way. Exotic, colourful, depraved, sensual, stupid, lazy, semi-pornographic. Found quite a lot in Western art:
http://tinyurl.com/p5xhwt5
-
hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.
-
hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.
Did you read that bit where I said that this has been a Western fantasy? It's 12 words before 'depraved'.
-
Wasn't quite sure what you meant. Is a naked man or woman depraved or pornographic? They were fine before the swarm of conquerors and missionaries arrived and made them so. That they were happily naked before was not a fantasy but it soon became one.
-
Wasn't quite sure what you meant. Is a naked man or woman depraved or pornographic? They were fine before the swarm of conquerors and missionaries arrived and made them so. That they were happily naked before was not a fantasy but it soon became one.
I recall that in some African country the Christian missionaries demanded that their new converted women should cover their breasts. This however was a sign in the African country's culture that the woman was a prostitute.
-
The grass is always greener........
Did the East think that of the West all those years ago?
-
I think it's a bit more than that. There's a lot written about it - for example, desires and feelings that Westerners would normally suppress, could be expressed via 'oriental' imagery. So there are a ton of Victorian paintings, with semi-naked ladies, with their boobs out, cavorting in front of stern looking men. They have titles like 'The harem', 'The Turkish bath', and so on, and so, it made it OK for Victorian gentlemen (and maybe ladies) to look at these salacious images, cos it was the dark-skinned beauties who was doing it, not us. Actually, some of the paintings are pretty good, it's not all porn. And it's not all sex, there are landscapes, market scenes, slave scenes, and so on. Full of Eastern promise, is right.
-
Something I read recently which implied that the East, over the last coupler thousand years or so has been more open and less prudish about sex etc. than the Occidental, with its repressed attitudes as conveyed in religion especially the historical one of Christianity.
Can anyone confirm or rebuke this general notion?
In India, one principle is very important. Everyone is not the same.
Life is about Self Development and therefore everyone is essentially different from everyone else...to at least a small degree. Some people can be vastly different from some others. Its a broad spectrum with various kinds of people distributed along the length and breath of life. The same expectations from everyone is unrealistic.
So...the same rules and the same lifestyles, tastes and preferences cannot apply to all people. It will not only be inappropriate but will also be unnatural and even a hindrance to their spiritual progress.
Sex is not a sin. Even promiscuity is not considered a sin. Only hurting someone else or preventing some one else's spiritual development is a sin.
While priests, philosophers, thinkers and mystics were expected to be controlled and lead a monogamous life..... kings, soldiers and such others were allowed to have many wives and even employ courtesans. The business class were also allowed some liberties especially with money and sex. Prostitution was legal and books like the kamasutra were common.
The greatest sin was for a person of a higher level to descend in his spiritual level due to the influence of a less developed person. However, since people of different persuasions lived in different communities and in separate places....the lifestyle of one group was not normally allowed to influence the others.
There is even said to be a world called Swarga....where people of certain spiritual levels go after death. There are believed to be beautiful apsaras (maidens of extraordinary beauty) and all pleasures imaginable. This world is however also a temporary world and the people there would have to be born again on earth and rid themselves of such tendencies in due course.
The same gradation is also valid regarding food and vegetarianism. Everyone is not expected to be a vegetarian. The Brahmins were expected to be strict vegetarians, live only on alms and lead a monogamous and pious life. But others were allowed to eat meat and indulge in sensual pleasures.
-
Thanks.
That's interesting post Sriram.
I have read a bit about life in India but have never been there.
One of the things I read, which was about untouchables living in separate communities, you have mentioned here.
Another thing I read was that some people have different stages in life, the last one they travel on foot and in effect become ' holy men' and are given food by the community.
Rose,
1. The caste system was based on division of labor.... also tied in with spiritual development.
The 'untouchables' were a fifth community (outside the caste system) who carried night soil, cremated the dead, buried and skinned dead animals ...and so on. They were therefore exposed to many bacteria and diseases. That is why they were kept outside the villages and were required to use separate wells for drinking water. Their food, clothing and other requirements were kept by their wells for them to take.
It was believed that these people were prevented from getting diseases by the gods (natural immunity we know of today). If they were allowed into the villages and due to water contamination or direct touch, any epidemic started off, millions would die. That is why they were untouchables.
Given the context of that time...the medical limitations, close living communities and so on... it seems a wise idea...though today it might seem cruel and discriminatory.
It must also be remembered that till recent centuries the caste system wasn't very rigid. Veda Vyasa...who compiled the Vedas and wrote the Bhagavad Gita belonged to a low caste. Valmiki, who wrote the Ramayana was a tribal hunter who was given the status of a Brahmin when he wrote the epic. If a person showed great promise..he/she was promoted to a higher caste. A king was once named as a great sage (reserved for brahmins) because he undertook great penance.
2. The second question is about Sanyasis. Hindus generally do not encourage monastic life. If a person becomes a monk at an young age he is generally regarded as a wastrel unless he shows extraordinary wisdom and Jnana from an young age. Some famous child monks (bala-sanyasis) are known....Adi Shankara being one.
Normally most people are expected to go through four stages.
Brahmacharya ...gain knowledge of life and dharma (rules) for living from a guru. (usually 6 to 16 years of age)
Grihasta ..... Work, marriage, children and a house holders life. This period is considered the most important. (16 to 40 years)
Vanaprasta....Life of quite retirement and advising children about the ways of the world, work, bringing up their children etc. (40 to 60)
Sanyasa..... leave the household, renounce all wealth and comforts, no feeling of kinship to anyone. Adopt a universal mindset and see everyone as equal. Lead a life of wandering and live on whatever is given by others.
This process is said to lead to a harmonious and stable social order and also help in spiritual development of the individual.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
About your subsequent points....all humans are not the same and we all know that instinctively. We all gravitate towards a group that we feel we belong to.
The UK class system, the US slavery....and many more examples of segregation abound in the world. Nothing new.
Division of labour was another form of classification. UK always had its bakers, smiths, cooks and so on. Work was related to family and skills were expected to be passed on through families. All this made perfect sense given the absence of modern systems of formal education and universal schooling.
The caste system was only one example of a such hierarchy systems that worked for millennia. In the modern context, casteism had been banned in India for decades and one hardly knows who is of what caste in the workplace. There is now universal education and work opportunity.
-
hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.
Sounds about right to me.
ippy
-
hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.
Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.
-
hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.
Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.
That's a laugh. ::) Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations! >:(
-
hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.
Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.
That's a laugh. ::) Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations! >:(
And it's a scandal, nevertheless my point stands.
-
hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.
Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.
That's a laugh. ::) Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations! >:(
And it's a scandal, nevertheless my point stands.
Does it? In my experience many religious people are no more moral sexually than those who don't have a faith.
-
hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.
Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.
That's a laugh. ::) Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations! >:(
And it's a scandal, nevertheless my point stands.
Does it? In my experience many religious people are no more moral sexually than those who don't have a faith.
You seemed to have missed my point. It wasn't about what percentage of Christians are actually faithful to Christian sexual morality. Even in the epistle to the Cornthians we see a man excommunicated for doinking his father's wife. Rather it was to give some of the rationale behind it.
-
hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.
Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.
That's a laugh. ::) Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations! >:(
And it's a scandal, nevertheless my point stands.
Does it? In my experience many religious people are no more moral sexually than those who don't have a faith.
You seemed to have missed my point. It wasn't about what percentage of Christians are actually faithful to Christian sexual morality. Even in the epistle to the Cornthians we see a man excommunicated for doinking his father's wife. Rather it was to give some of the rationale behind it.
The Bible is hardly an example of people being faithful to their spouses is it? The Biblical Patriarchs bonked other women as well as their wives!
-
Indeed. No one, except Christ, is perfect.
-
Interesting definition of perfect you have there.
-
Interesting definition of perfect you have there.
No doubt yours is more in line with Peter Tinniswood's Uncle Mort.....''A bloke wi' big Knockers''.
-
Jesus as a hermaphrodite ... I know you lot come up with some crazy shit as a matter of course, but that's a new one on me.
-
Indeed. No one, except Christ, is perfect.
The Bible doesn't portray Jesus as perfect!
-
That's a laugh. ::) Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations! >:(
And how many are there, Floo? You seem to have a handle on the numbers, perhaps you could tell us. Are there any more paedophiles within the leadership of the Christian church than there are outside it?
Regarding the thread topic, I think we need to be careful about generalising about 'Christianity' and sex. Clearly there were and are Gnostic ways of thinking about the body as a whole, not just the sexual bits. But that applies to far more cultures than the 'Christian' ones.
'Priestly' celibacy existed long before Christ's day - The belief that religious figures should be celibate began long before the birth of Christianity. Ancient Druid priests were thought to have been celibate and Aztec temple priests were expected to remain sexually abstinent. Other pre-Christian sects mandated that the people chosen for their sacrificial offerings must be pure, meaning that they had never engaged in sex.
The Bible - both Old and New - make a lot of the concept of marriage, not to mention the relevant parts of the body.
As I understand it, the idea that Catholic priests should be celibate is a relatively late addition to their thinking - circa the 11th century The first written mandate requiring priests to be chaste came in AD 304. Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira stated that all"bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics" were to"abstain completely from their wives and not to have children." A short time later, in 325, the Council of Nicea, convened by Constantine, rejected a ban on priests marrying requested by Spanish clerics.
The practice of priestly celibacy began to spread in the Western Church in the early Middle Ages. In the early 11th century Pope Benedict VIII responded to the decline in priestly morality by issuing a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property. A few decades later Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages.
The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/696#sthash.0XyVNagh.dpuf (for both this and my previous quote)
Have to say that I've never found any realistic explanation of these developments - though it has been said that people felt that a priest who is married couldn't give his parishioners full attention - but where that idea comes from is open to debate. It might have some links with Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 7 (which is of course the passage that is most commonly quoted in this respect) but I have heard scholars suggest that it was more a reflection of Roman thinking.
-
Was going to add this onto the end of my previous post, but decided to post it separately.
We need to be very careful about suggesting that the West is more or less prudish than the East. Both areas have bits of the body that they regard as sensual. For the West, it's the boobs; for many in the East, it's the ankles and calves. If you go to India and the subcontinent, you will find women with extremely low-cut sari blouses causing not a stir; but as soon as they so much as show an ankle, let alone a calf or knee, all hell is liable to break out. OK, this is less so in the cities, but is still very common in the rural areas.
-
Indeed. No one, except Christ, is perfect.
The Bible doesn't portray Jesus as perfect!
Doesn't it? I know that you like to quote his cursing the fig tree and his turning over of the tables in the temple as evidence that he isn't, Floo, but when one looks at the contexts of those passages, you see something consistent with being perfect.
-
About your subsequent points....all humans are not the same and we all know that instinctively. We all gravitate towards a group that we feel we belong to.
The UK class system, the US slavery....and many more examples of segregation abound in the world. Nothing new.
Division of labour was another form of classification. UK always had its bakers, smiths, cooks and so on. Work was related to family and skills were expected to be passed on through families. All this made perfect sense given the absence of modern systems of formal education and universal schooling.
The caste system was only one example of a such hierarchy systems that worked for millennia. In the modern context, casteism had been banned in India for decades and one hardly knows who is of what caste in the workplace. There is now universal education and work opportunity.
This is all very interesting, Sriram. I suspect you may be wearing your rose-coloured spectacles. I fully understand your desire to show your country in the best light, but to compare the caste system with the British class system and the division of labour is disingenuous.
I have been reading an academic article in The Psychologist by Professor Paul Ghuman of Aberystwyth University who says that, not only is the caste system still alive and well in the Indian subcontinent but has been exported to places like the United Kingdom where there is a substantial population of people with Indian origins. He points out that Dalit children, in areas where there is a high Hindu concentration may suffer discrimination at school coming from two sources: firstly, from the "native" white children, and secondly from the higher caste children within their own ethnic group.
He states that the caste system is reproducing itself through "endogamy, early socialisation, social networking and, paradoxically, places of worship".
It may be the desire of the government and of the enlightened elite in India to eliminate caste, but it would still appear to be an enormous problem. I think it will be a very time before something which is engrained in the national culture disappears.
It would be something else if the Indian diaspora could bring with them the attitudes to sex and sexuality you described earlier ....
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-28/july-2015/reaching-out-untouchables#
-
HH,
You are telling me what you have read from some book. I am telling you what I see every day in my country. I have worked for 35 years in industry with people of many different castes and classes and have never seen any discrimination what so ever.
Even if some people still do choose to discriminate in the UK...its no different from the racist or anti -muslim or anti-asian stand many people take in the west.
-
Sriram
I have not the slightest doubt of the extremely good intentions of the Indian government and of enlightened people like you. India has a population about 20 times that of the United Kingdom and still has many urgent infrastructural problems to overcome, structural social problems among them.
I did not get this from "some book" but from the member's journal of a learned society of which I am a member. I have provided you with a link, why not read the article first?
-
Indeed. No one, except Christ, is perfect.
The Bible doesn't portray Jesus as perfect!
Doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
I know that you like to quote his cursing the fig tree and his turning over of the tables in the temple as evidence that he isn't, Floo, but when one looks at the contexts of those passages, you see something consistent with being perfect.
What a truly warped idea of perfection you must have to buy into to come out with such guff.
-
160,000,000 untouchables in India. These people live in constant fear. The Hindu caste system is alive and well in India.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html
-
160,000,000 untouchables in India. These people live in constant fear. The Hindu caste system is alive and well in India.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html
Hi Johnny... That's like saying that there are 39 million blacks in the US who are living in constant fear of being killed because of the Ferguson, Baltimore and Charleston killings! :D
Not entirely untrue if you think about it actually.
(Not to mention the 2.5 million muslims).
-
HH,
You are telling me what you have read from some book. I am telling you what I see every day in my country. I have worked for 35 years in industry with people of many different castes and classes and have never seen any discrimination what so ever.
Even if some people still do choose to discriminate in the UK...its no different from the racist or anti -muslim or anti-asian stand many people take in the west.
I didn't take many weeks of working in India and Nepal, Sri to see the rampant discrimination.
I would agree that, originally, the caste system might have had something to do with division of labour - but nowadays, it is at least as much about your spiritual status as it is about your labour status.
-
Indeed. No one, except Christ, is perfect.
The Bible doesn't portray Jesus as perfect!
Doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
O, Shaker, examples please.
What a truly warped idea of perfection you must have to buy into to come out with such guff.
OK, what was the clearing of the Temple all about?
-
Why do you feel likening it to the class system was disingenuous?
just curious.
Rose, one can move between the class groupings whilst you can't do so within the caste system. I agree that often a first generation class-system mover may well be looked down on (or even up to) by those they have joined, but it doesn't take more than a generation or two for that to disappear. Under the caste system you are a Dalit, or a Chettri, a Brahmin or whatever not just for life. It is for ever. It is actually built into your family name. This means that, even if you are a highly successful business entrepeneur, if your name is one associated with a particular position on the caste ladder, you will forever be treated as one of that caste - as will your descendents.
-
I think there are many reasons why the west regarded women in the east more free with their intentions.
1. The customs were different and was misunderstood as they didn't conform to western values
2. They were foreigners, so we're considered of less importance than westerners.
3. They weren't Christian so we're suspected of being primitive or immoral foreigners.
I'm sure there are more.
If you look back in history you can see the attitude, which wasn't very pleasant.
"If you look back in history", Rose, you will see that Christianity is not an exclusively Western faith. For instance, Christianity arrived in S. India decades before it arrived in Western Europe (the Mar Thoma Church in Kerala - S.W.India - dates from c. 55 AD; Christianity didn't arrive in Gaul until the early 2nd century, and although there is some evidence to suggest that it arrived in Southern Britain as early as 40AD!!, it is more generally agreed that it didn't really gain a foothold until the mid- to late-2nd century). Most of your comments above really only relate to the last 3 - 400 years, and especially to Victorian Britian.
-
Indeed. No one, except Christ, is perfect.
The Bible doesn't portray Jesus as perfect!
No Jesus doesn't describe himself as perfect either, in fact that bit where he says " only God is good" implies he saw himself as imperfect.
On the contrary, he is saying that he is God.
-
YER WOT ??!?!?!?!?!?
When did Jesus EVER say to ANYONE, YES I AM indeed your God !!?????
-
He never says so explicitly but he does say so implicitly many times.
-
Not sure that he ever said that he was 'your God' (to quote Nick), but on a number of occasions he used forms of words which, for the Jew, were exclusively associated to God. That is why the Jewish authorities hauled him in front of Herod and accused him of blasphemy. They certainly believed that he was claiming divinity.
-
Hi everyone,
About casteism...well...as expected Johnny, Hope and HH have done the honors. We only need Jakswan and KO to add their bit....I suppose. ;)
As I have said....caste was a very important system that maintained social stability. It was there in in some form in all societies around the world till universal schooling systems and professionally managed work places came into vogue. There was nothing wrong with the caste system in earlier centuries. It worked and people were happy in their respective positions.
Its all about publicity finally. Its about what one wants to see and publicize. Only Hope has even been to India (even though with his Christian missionary view point). The others only google and come up with what they think of India. :D
Depends on what you want to see actually. You can see the wonderful secular and democratic society or the chaotic traffic. You can see the millions who work together or you can see the discrimination by few people. You can see the passive and nonviolent society or random skirmishes between some hindus and muslims. You can see the wonderful position women enjoy across the country or the rape and horror in some instances. Its up to you.
India has always received negative publicity with regard to all that it had...including Hinduism, marriage, vegetarianism, joint families, role of women, caste...etc.etc. Indians never did anything right it would seem from what has been written about it in the western press all these centuries!
But regardless...we are a very proud and happy people and we have weathered many a storm. Nothing is going to stop India and its people any more. It'll take a few more decades...but we'll get there. ;)
I never claimed that India is perfect...its not...but its a place that has so many positives that regardless of the negative publicity and its many problems...it still manages to attract and intrigue.
Come sometime for a visit.....all of you. You'll initially be shocked at its over population, chaos, disorderliness, heat and dust. You may want to run away. But stick around and you might want to make it your home as many westerners have. :)
As they say...'you can take a person out of India but you can't take India out of a person'.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Discrimination? The street cleaner with 4 degrees.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-33859315
Despite positive discrimination schemes and so on there are no simple solutions to issues originating in the caste system.
Modi does not seem to be making much of an impact.
On the sexual front there has been a lot of confused activity on pornography. Dowry crime, rape, child sexual exploitation etc are still major issues.
It is a big place with a lot going on, you can feel hope but there is a lot to despair and condemn.
-
It's not at all the same Sriram. Last time I checked on my cousins to the south, there was a black fella in the oval office, they have had a black secretary of state and the latest Muslim terrorist attacker lived in a home with a swimming pool. Look at their Supreme court justices and you are going to find an African American. Canada has even had a Black Governor General. Your untouchables live in fear and are stuck a society that forces them to survive by doing the most menial jobs. You will never have an untouchable in a position of power. Go and convince the 160,000,000 million untouchables that they are living an eastern delight.
-
India has had at least one president from the "dalit" caste, no prime ministers as yet but it's only a matter of time. Modi is from a "low" caste as various prime ministers have been. Dalit politicians have headed state governments.
In some areas "brahmins", often regarded as the "highest" caste, can't get jobs and are reduced to poverty - as education and jobs have been reserved for lower castes. In others, riots have occurred so that groups can be re-classified as lower castes in order to get benefits. There is nothing as simple about this, unlike the black or white situation in the Americas.
-
The cast system has helped with gene research, where particular groups have married within their groups.
Each group, (cast), has certain health issues specific to it's particular group this in turn helps to find where troublesome genes might be located, it can make them stand out and be easier to find.
ippy
-
You will never have an untouchable in a position of power
India has had at least one president from the "dalit" caste
Nice one johnny, let's have another ;)
-
YER WOT ??!?!?!?!?!?
When did Jesus EVER say to ANYONE, YES I AM indeed your God !!?????
It's such a long time ago they probably hadn't heard of delusional behaviour in those days, so it looks like they believed the poor sod.
ippy
-
It's not at all the same Sriram. Last time I checked on my cousins to the south, there was a black fella in the oval office, they have had a black secretary of state and the latest Muslim terrorist attacker lived in a home with a swimming pool. Look at their Supreme court justices and you are going to find an African American. Canada has even had a Black Governor General. Your untouchables live in fear and are stuck a society that forces them to survive by doing the most menial jobs. You will never have an untouchable in a position of power. Go and convince the 160,000,000 million untouchables that they are living an eastern delight.
Well Johnny....as Udayana has pointed out. India has had one dalit president (KR Narayanan -1997-2002) already, many muslim presidents, one woman president.
One women prime minister (even before UK) for 16 long years - Indira Gandhi. Many chief ministers of states are dalits and from the lower castes.
Brahmins are probably one of the poorest sections, though normally well educated. (Brahmins were always one of the poorest groups because they were never expected to amass wealth). Nowadays brahmins are employed mainly as scientists or as doctors and bureaucrats. Most science Nobel laureates from India (or of Indian origin) are Tamil brahmins.
You have no idea how many quotas and concessions have been given to the lower castes since independence! In one state 67% had been allotted to them!! They occupy many important positions today in all sections of society....including Govt. and industry.
So...take it easy!
-
Something I read recently which implied that the East, over the last coupler thousand years or so has been more open and less prudish about sex etc. than the Occidental, with its repressed attitudes as conveyed in religion especially the historical one of Christianity.
Can anyone confirm or rebuke this general notion?
In India, one principle is very important. Everyone is not the same.
Life is about Self Development and therefore everyone is essentially different from everyone else...to at least a small degree. Some people can be vastly different from some others. Its a broad spectrum with various kinds of people distributed along the length and breath of life. The same expectations from everyone is unrealistic.
So...the same rules and the same lifestyles, tastes and preferences cannot apply to all people. It will not only be inappropriate but will also be unnatural and even a hindrance to their spiritual progress.
Sex is not a sin. Even promiscuity is not considered a sin. Only hurting someone else or preventing some one else's spiritual development is a sin.
While priests, philosophers, thinkers and mystics were expected to be controlled and lead a monogamous life..... kings, soldiers and such others were allowed to have many wives and even employ courtesans. The business class were also allowed some liberties especially with money and sex. Prostitution was legal and books like the kamasutra were common.
The greatest sin was for a person of a higher level to descend in his spiritual level due to the influence of a less developed person. However, since people of different persuasions lived in different communities and in separate places....the lifestyle of one group was not normally allowed to influence the others.
There is even said to be a world called Swarga....where people of certain spiritual levels go after death. There are believed to be beautiful apsaras (maidens of extraordinary beauty) and all pleasures imaginable. This world is however also a temporary world and the people there would have to be born again on earth and rid themselves of such tendencies in due course.
The same gradation is also valid regarding food and vegetarianism. Everyone is not expected to be a vegetarian. The Brahmins were expected to be strict vegetarians, live only on alms and lead a monogamous and pious life. But others were allowed to eat meat and indulge in sensual pleasures.
Thank you for that. So I take it from this that all this was public knowledge, out in the open. The difference with Western culture over the ages, as it seems to me, was that similar conduct was engaged in but it was done surreptitiously and away from the judgement of the perceived norms and morals of the collective psyche and as such was a repressed attitude. And which only in recent history has it been relaxed and taken into the collective society as a whole.
-
Discrimination? The street cleaner with 4 degrees.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-33859315
Despite positive discrimination schemes and so on there are no simple solutions to issues originating in the caste system.
Modi does not seem to be making much of an impact.
On the sexual front there has been a lot of confused activity on pornography. Dowry crime, rape, child sexual exploitation etc are still major issues.
It is a big place with a lot going on, you can feel hope but there is a lot to despair and condemn.
What has the street cleaners position got to do with caste? How many brahmins do you want who have degrees but who don't have a job? Do you know how many poor brahmin men and women work as maids and cooks with a meager income?
As I said above...its all about negative publicity. One low caste person with a degree and without a job.... and its discrimination?!!
There must be many blacks in the UK and US with degrees and without jobs...is it all because of discrimination? We have heard that many blacks are overlooked for jobs they are qualified for....while whites are chosen.
-
In India, one principle is very important. Everyone is not the same.
Life is about Self Development and therefore everyone is essentially different from everyone else...to at least a small degree. Some people can be vastly different from some others. Its a broad spectrum with various kinds of people distributed along the length and breath of life. The same expectations from everyone is unrealistic.
So...the same rules and the same lifestyles, tastes and preferences cannot apply to all people. It will not only be inappropriate but will also be unnatural and even a hindrance to their spiritual progress.
Sex is not a sin. Even promiscuity is not considered a sin. Only hurting someone else or preventing some one else's spiritual development is a sin.
While priests, philosophers, thinkers and mystics were expected to be controlled and lead a monogamous life..... kings, soldiers and such others were allowed to have many wives and even employ courtesans. The business class were also allowed some liberties especially with money and sex. Prostitution was legal and books like the kamasutra were common.
The greatest sin was for a person of a higher level to descend in his spiritual level due to the influence of a less developed person. However, since people of different persuasions lived in different communities and in separate places....the lifestyle of one group was not normally allowed to influence the others.
There is even said to be a world called Swarga....where people of certain spiritual levels go after death. There are believed to be beautiful apsaras (maidens of extraordinary beauty) and all pleasures imaginable. This world is however also a temporary world and the people there would have to be born again on earth and rid themselves of such tendencies in due course.
The same gradation is also valid regarding food and vegetarianism. Everyone is not expected to be a vegetarian. The Brahmins were expected to be strict vegetarians, live only on alms and lead a monogamous and pious life. But others were allowed to eat meat and indulge in sensual pleasures.
Thank you for that. So I take it from this that all this was public knowledge, out in the open. The difference with Western culture over the ages, as it seems to me, was that similar conduct was engaged in but it was done surreptitiously and away from the judgement of the perceived norms and morals of the collective psyche and as such was a repressed attitude. And which only in recent history has it been relaxed and taken into the collective society as a whole.
The funniest thing is that in spite of so much of kamasutra and sexual allowance given to certain sections (many state ministers have had two or even three wives) ....most common people are monogamous and believe in strict family values (even if some men do stray around a bit sometimes). The divorce rate in India even today is about 1.3%.
So...IMO all these sex related books and temple carvings don't make any difference to family values....if these values are inculcated the right way. As children we have seen many temple carvings with women showing their bosom. Even many goddesses are bare bodied. We have never thought of them as wrong or bad.
The female bosom always represented motherhood to us....somehow.
-
hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.
Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.
That's a laugh. ::) Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations! >:(
And it's a scandal, nevertheless my point stands.
Does it? In my experience many religious people are no more moral sexually than those who don't have a faith.
AO's point was about the origins of all this. The pagans were seen as wild and out of control in their conduct, say in their rituals etc. Christianity took a more civilised 'Greek' approach as percolated through the Rome world through its philosophy etc. But of course many individuals within that system fail.
-
No Jesus doesn't describe himself as perfect either, in fact that bit where he says " only God is good" implies he saw himself as imperfect.
Perhaps you would do a piece of literary criticism on the passage and its context to prove that what you suggest is true, Rose. It comes in Luke 18. I'll be interested to see it when you are done.
-
In India, one principle is very important. Everyone is not the same.
Life is about Self Development and therefore everyone is essentially different from everyone else...to at least a small degree. Some people can be vastly different from some others. Its a broad spectrum with various kinds of people distributed along the length and breath of life. The same expectations from everyone is unrealistic.
So...the same rules and the same lifestyles, tastes and preferences cannot apply to all people. It will not only be inappropriate but will also be unnatural and even a hindrance to their spiritual progress.
Sex is not a sin. Even promiscuity is not considered a sin. Only hurting someone else or preventing some one else's spiritual development is a sin.
While priests, philosophers, thinkers and mystics were expected to be controlled and lead a monogamous life..... kings, soldiers and such others were allowed to have many wives and even employ courtesans. The business class were also allowed some liberties especially with money and sex. Prostitution was legal and books like the kamasutra were common.
The greatest sin was for a person of a higher level to descend in his spiritual level due to the influence of a less developed person. However, since people of different persuasions lived in different communities and in separate places....the lifestyle of one group was not normally allowed to influence the others.
There is even said to be a world called Swarga....where people of certain spiritual levels go after death. There are believed to be beautiful apsaras (maidens of extraordinary beauty) and all pleasures imaginable. This world is however also a temporary world and the people there would have to be born again on earth and rid themselves of such tendencies in due course.
The same gradation is also valid regarding food and vegetarianism. Everyone is not expected to be a vegetarian. The Brahmins were expected to be strict vegetarians, live only on alms and lead a monogamous and pious life. But others were allowed to eat meat and indulge in sensual pleasures.
Thank you for that. So I take it from this that all this was public knowledge, out in the open. The difference with Western culture over the ages, as it seems to me, was that similar conduct was engaged in but it was done surreptitiously and away from the judgement of the perceived norms and morals of the collective psyche and as such was a repressed attitude. And which only in recent history has it been relaxed and taken into the collective society as a whole.
The funniest thing is that in spite of so much of kamasutra and sexual allowance given to certain sections (many state ministers have had two or even three wives) ....most common people are monogamous and believe in strict family values (even if some men do stray around a bit sometimes). The divorce rate in India even today is about 1.3%.
So...IMO all these sex related books and temple carvings don't make any difference to family values....if these values are inculcated the right way. As children we have seen many temple carvings with women showing their bosom. Even many goddesses are bare bodied. We have never thought of them as wrong or bad.
The female bosom always represented motherhood to us....somehow.
My OP was about a general comment of East and West over the many millennia. Today we have the mix of many ideas because of colonization and our ability in the relative recent past to travel around the world sharing and influencing each others cultures. What is seen to be going on today in various regions will be an amalgam of their history and will not be applicable to the OP's aims.
-
Discrimination? The street cleaner with 4 degrees.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-33859315
Despite positive discrimination schemes and so on there are no simple solutions to issues originating in the caste system.
Modi does not seem to be making much of an impact.
On the sexual front there has been a lot of confused activity on pornography. Dowry crime, rape, child sexual exploitation etc are still major issues.
It is a big place with a lot going on, you can feel hope but there is a lot to despair and condemn.
What has the street cleaners position got to do with caste? How many brahmins do you want who have degrees but who don't have a job? Do you know how many poor brahmin men and women work as maids and cooks with a meager income?
As I said above...its all about negative publicity. One low caste person with a degree and without a job.... and its discrimination?!!
There must be many blacks in the UK and US with degrees and without jobs...is it all because of discrimination? We have heard that many blacks are overlooked for jobs they are qualified for....while whites are chosen.
OK, it is too much to deduce from a single case without knowing the facts fully, but such a case in the UK would probably end up being judged by an employment tribunal.
We judge discrimination from statistics, and there is still plenty of discrimination in the UK, USA based on colour or race as well as gender, disability and sexual orientation.
-
...
The funniest thing is that in spite of so much of kamasutra and sexual allowance given to certain sections (many state ministers have had two or even three wives) ....most common people are monogamous and believe in strict family values (even if some men do stray around a bit sometimes). The divorce rate in India even today is about 1.3%.
So...IMO all these sex related books and temple carvings don't make any difference to family values....if these values are inculcated the right way. As children we have seen many temple carvings with women showing their bosom. Even many goddesses are bare bodied. We have never thought of them as wrong or bad.
The female bosom always represented motherhood to us....somehow.
Well the liberal attitudes were gone a long time ago, mostly by the 15th century. Bosoms are now rarely seen in public where, even 50 years ago, breastfeeding in public was not an issue. These days India and really all of the East can only be described as repressed and more puritanical than the West.
-
...
The funniest thing is that in spite of so much of kamasutra and sexual allowance given to certain sections (many state ministers have had two or even three wives) ....most common people are monogamous and believe in strict family values (even if some men do stray around a bit sometimes). The divorce rate in India even today is about 1.3%.
So...IMO all these sex related books and temple carvings don't make any difference to family values....if these values are inculcated the right way. As children we have seen many temple carvings with women showing their bosom. Even many goddesses are bare bodied. We have never thought of them as wrong or bad.
The female bosom always represented motherhood to us....somehow.
Well the liberal attitudes were gone a long time ago, mostly by the 15th century. Bosoms are now rarely seen in public where, even 50 years ago, breastfeeding in public was not an issue. These days India and really all of the East can only be described as repressed and more puritanical than the West.
I am not sure about being 'liberal'. 'Liberal' in the modern context means letting everyone live as they please. Most people today have no definite ideology or clear idea of what is right and wrong in life. Religion and spirituality have lost their authority and the safest way forward seems to be to let everyone live as they want as long as they don't harm someone else.
Who are we to judge?! That is being 'liberal'.
India was never liberal in the above sense. Indians have always had a very clear idea of what life meant, what was right and wrong and what was expected of people. There was no confusion in this.
Hinduism only had different norms for different people.....which is like having different expectations from a two year old as compared to a 5 year old... and similarly from a ten year old as compared to a twenty year old.
Just as we have different expectations from young and the old...from women and men. We have different expectations from doctors and soldiers.....and from prostitutes and nuns. From butchers and monks.....and so on.
No one is a sinner if he or she is performing their duty and lives in line with their nature. A prostitute having sex with many men was not a sinner condemned to hell or any such nonsense. However a household woman who has a good husband and family, having a secret love affair was a sinner. A king using a prostitute was not a sinner...but a brahmin doing the same thing was a sinner.
No one was condemned to hell for all eternity..of course. Everyone had to be born again to wok out their karma. Its all about how the karmic energies accumulate in an individual.
In fact, even punishments were dependent on the person and his social level. If a low caste person receives one punishment for stealing, a vaishya (business class) would receive double the punishment, a kshtrya (warrior class) would receive three times...and a brahmin would receive four times the punishment...for the same crime.
Dharma is very complex and should always be seen in the context of the situation. Lying, stealing and murder are not always sins. It depends on the intent, who does it and in what context.
-
Hinduism only had different norms for different people.....which is like having different expectations from a two year old as compared to a 5 year old... and similarly from a ten year old as compared to a twenty year old.
Except that those examples are not comparisons. As you will agree we move from being a 2-year old to being a 5-year old to being a 10-year old to being a 20-year old over a period of time. In other words we move from one norm to another to another. The caste system in Hinduism doesn't permit that kind of progression. If you are born a Dalit, you are a Dalit for life; if you are born a Brahmin, you are a Brahmin for life. Perhaps more importantly, if you are born a Dalit it isn't only you who are a Dalit for life; it's your children, their children and their children ad infinituum who remain Dalits for all time. The same applies to Brahmins, Kshatriyas and every other caste grouping.
-
Hinduism only had different norms for different people.....which is like having different expectations from a two year old as compared to a 5 year old... and similarly from a ten year old as compared to a twenty year old.
Except that those examples are not comparisons. As you will agree we move from being a 2-year old to being a 5-year old to being a 10-year old to being a 20-year old over a period of time. In other words we move from one norm to another to another. The caste system in Hinduism doesn't permit that kind of progression. If you are born a Dalit, you are a Dalit for life; if you are born a Brahmin, you are a Brahmin for life. Perhaps more importantly, if you are born a Dalit it isn't only you who are a Dalit for life; it's your children, their children and their children ad infinituum who remain Dalits for all time. The same applies to Brahmins, Kshatriyas and every other caste grouping.
I have been accused of repeating myself many times....but if this is the situation, I perhaps need to do so more often! :D
You don't have to agree with what is said...but the least that is expected is that you understand what is said.....especially if it is repeated again and again.
Oh well.....maybe some other time. :)
-
You don't have to agree with what is said...but the least that is expected is that you understand what is said.....especially if it is repeated again and again.
Oh well.....maybe some other time. :)
I fully understand what you are saying, and disagree with hat you are saying on the strength of the experiences of Indian and Nepalese (Hindu) nationals I worked alongside whilst in the sub-continent. In fact, on a number of occasions, local people who were providing orientation training to ex-pts like myself stated - very clearly - that one should never compare the Hindu caste system with the Western class system; they were/are two totally different animals.
-
In the far distant past probably the class and caste systems have similar origins, but they are not at all comparable now.
The caste system has been going around 3000, maybe 4000, years. The class system is something that developed during the advance of the west after the renaissance, mostly due to the industrial revolution.
"Dalit" is not even a "caste" in the original definition, which defined four "varnas" which made up society. Caste itself developed later, incorporating various tribal and other ethnic groups and "out-castes" (dalits).
At first it might have seemed obvious that a smiths son would be trained in his fathers craft and become a smith, or a priests son would be educated as priest - learning Vedas by heart, for instance, would need training from infancy. Each person is born to the family and life they choose or are destined to be born into and inherit the responsibilities and duties of their parents. The model can be more or less rigid according to outlook, circumstances and necessity.
Later, especially during Mogul and British regimes, the whole system becomes quite corrupt and unsupportable. The abstract model of how people are "supposed" to be is used to create division, inhibit progress and exploit people.
-
As I have said....caste was a very important system that maintained social stability. It was there in in some form in all societies around the world till universal schooling systems and professionally managed work places came into vogue. There was nothing wrong with the caste system in earlier centuries. It worked and people were happy in their respective positions.
In much the same way that institutionalised racism and slavery were the foundation for the British Empire and helped social stability and the class system was the foundation of the industrial revolution and helped social stability.
Social stability isn't a good thing if it's enshrining the disenfranchisement of a particular group. Individual liberty is lost at the expense of social stability.
But regardless...we are a very proud and happy people and we have weathered many a storm. Nothing is going to stop India and its people any more. It'll take a few more decades...but we'll get there. ;)
Great, happy for you. You have an immense amount to be proud of, but that doesn't mean you can gloss over or forget about the things that haven't been done well - all nations have elements that try to do this, Britain is no exception.
O.
-
Caste and caste associated behaviour is alive and well and living in the Indian diaspora.
A British Indian couple deliberately imported a servant from India. The imported woman appears to be a Christian not a Hindu.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34330986
A woman recruited from India to be a domestic servant for a family in the UK and paid 11p an hour has been awarded almost £184,000 in unpaid wages.
Permila Tirkey, 39, was discriminated against because of her "low caste", her lawyers said, describing it as the first successful case of its kind.
She worked 18-hour days, having been recruited because her employers wanted someone "servile", a tribunal heard.
.......
The hearing, in Cambridge, was told Ms Tirkey worked for Pooja and Ajay Chandhok in Milton Keynes for four and a half years, during which time:
She worked an 18-hour day, seven days a week
She slept on a foam mattress on the floor
She was prevented from bringing her Bible to the UK and going to church
Her passport was held by the Chandhoks and she had no access to it
She was not allowed to call her family
She was given second-hand clothing instead of choosing her own clothes
........
The tribunal heard Ms Tirkey was recruited from Bihar in eastern India in 2008 because her employers wanted "someone who would be not merely of service but servile, who would not be aware of United Kingdom employment rights".
It concluded Ms Tirkey, who could not speak English, was considered "ideal" by the family because of her position as a member of the Adivasi caste, described as the lowest class in the "caste pyramid". She described herself as being from the "servant class".
The tribunal found "the claimant was acceptable to the respondents as their domestic servant, not because of her skills but because she was, by birth, by virtue of her inherited position in society, and by virtue of her upbringing... a person whose expectations in life were no higher than to be a domestic servant".
No-one based in the UK would have accepted the conditions of work, it concluded.