--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:14 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Feb 15, 2011, at 2:22 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > >> > >>> If hearing that makes you uptight and makes you think that > >>> I am "attacking" you by saying it, you might want to look > >>> into that reaction, and try to figure out where it came > >>> from. It sounds a lot like religious fundamentalism to me. > >> > >> > >> While in the west Maharishi's Neovedism may seem left-leaning by our > >> standards, in India Maharishi's programmes were/are associated with > >> their religious right - the immoral majority of caste-based slavery. > >> > > > > Anthropologists believe that the caste tradition in INdia was never rigidly > > enforced until the Brits took over, and that that helped create some of the > > worst of the worst issues in modern Indian culture. Of course, the > > ultra-religious, which MMY certainly qualified as, were convinced that > > rigid observation of the caste system is absolutely required. > > > Historically speaking one of the most destructive aspects of the caste system > was the loss of reading and the loss of the various arts and sciences due to > illiteracy and the theory of atman-brahman. Eventually the various castes > associated with the arts and sciences couldn't even be read. It took > centuries likely, but slowly, surely the 'twice-borns' gained the upper hand. > > This all happened long before the British. >
Hmmm? The twice-born were everyone BUT the original Dravidians. At least within the official caste structure, the Dravidians were never castes associated with arts and sciences. Lawson
