<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 3 2007, 02:53 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 3 2007, 02:53 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><statement>
(Acharya Hajari Prasad Dwivedi vAngmay kosha)
[right][snapback]74851[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bodhi, that Acharya's statement strikes me as Opinion (perhaps not his own and merely one he learnt) as it is not consonant with what an important Rishi (1), and Dharmaraja's son Dharmaputra (Yudhisthira) who is described as the embodiment of Dharma just like his father (2) have set down either by example or in dialogue. From my reading of the Bhagavadgita, it does not state that one's ancestry determines which of the Varnas one belongs to; it says rather that one's nature determines it. (Not birth, but character in other words.)
Surely, when it comes to such grave matters - especially where there are conflicting views on the same - we may defer to earlier and more authoritative/knowledgeable persons. In which case the Acharya in question is in disagreement with
(1) Rishi Gautama - as you yourself posted here
(2) God Yama's son Yudhisthira - quoted by member Gangajal here
And of course the Gita, as explained.
And failing all that, Hindu Dharma gives us the right to exercise our own careful, well-considered judgement based on conscience, reasoning and humane principles (often the voice of Bhagavan within us). This is a safety mechanism built into Hinduism to ensure that we don't fall for traps by any who unscrupulously or unwittingly insert wrong things into our sacred scriptures. As a very simple example, you can see countless sites where missionaries or islamis (example: Zakir Naik in U-tyoob) go about declaring that their jehovallah is "predicted" in the Bhavishya Purana 'hence us Hindoos ought to convert to christoislamism'. Yeah, right. Mwahahahahahahhaaa.
Am not fond of a broken record either, but certain things are worth repasting/repeating, like what our sages had said long ago:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yuktiyuktamupa'deyam' vacanam' ba'laka'dapi anyam'trn'amiva tyajyamapyuktam' padmajanmana'.
"Even if a young boy says something logical it should be accepted;
and even if the lotus-born Brahma says something illogical, it should be rejected like a straw."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kevalam' sha'strama'shritya'm' na karttavyovinirn'ayah yuktihiina' vica'retu dharmaha'ni praja'yate.
"It is undesirable to accept anything just because it is written in the scriptures;
for if the illogical sayings therein be accepted and acted upon, it results in the loss of dharma."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(All those funny apostrophes are not mine. I just CPed as usual.)
In this case, my view is that conduct and character alone determine what one is. And in this my opinion chimes in happily with the reliable words/actions of (1) and (2) above.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Acharya Hajari Prasad
from kshatriya vIrya and sUdra womb are born mlechchha-s,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This Acharya must be writing in a time later than the Mahabharatam, as in the epic's time Mleccha referred to a different community with its own language - one that the princely Pandavas did not have any hesitancy in consorting with. (House of wax episode.)
I have used the term 'mlechcha' lots of times in the rather medieval sense of total 'barbarian' (as was used for islami invaders back then). I use it for christoislamic terroristas and other genocidal maniacs or facilitators of genocide like Kissinger.
Based on all the above, I disagree - and have reason to disagree - with Acharya "Hajari Prasad Dwivedi vAngmay kosha" on that statement of his pasted in #125.
A person of any parentage/ancestry, may or may not be like either of his parents. Certainly, from my own experience, I am hardly anything like my grandparents - so I do know it from first-hand 'observation'.
One may have one or more ancestors of horrible character and still be a very good person. For example, look how different Dara Shikoh was from his psycho ancestors and other near-relatives. On the other hand, one may have wonderful ancestors and be a total Loosah (too many examples to count in modern-day India, sadly). What I am trying to say here was said far better by Yudhisthira -
That birth does not determine Varna, only character does (and consequently conduct - because character guides behaviour).
And as regards character, it is not fixed in life either. One can evolve within a single lifetime (just as one does over several), with our qualities improving as we go along. So just 'cause we're(/I'm) not Bhishma doesn't mean we're a lost cause or that we might as well throw ourselves over a balcony and get it over with (or something drastic like that <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
Edited: to remove repetition of post (with minor changes)
(Acharya Hajari Prasad Dwivedi vAngmay kosha)
[right][snapback]74851[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bodhi, that Acharya's statement strikes me as Opinion (perhaps not his own and merely one he learnt) as it is not consonant with what an important Rishi (1), and Dharmaraja's son Dharmaputra (Yudhisthira) who is described as the embodiment of Dharma just like his father (2) have set down either by example or in dialogue. From my reading of the Bhagavadgita, it does not state that one's ancestry determines which of the Varnas one belongs to; it says rather that one's nature determines it. (Not birth, but character in other words.)
Surely, when it comes to such grave matters - especially where there are conflicting views on the same - we may defer to earlier and more authoritative/knowledgeable persons. In which case the Acharya in question is in disagreement with
(1) Rishi Gautama - as you yourself posted here
(2) God Yama's son Yudhisthira - quoted by member Gangajal here
And of course the Gita, as explained.
And failing all that, Hindu Dharma gives us the right to exercise our own careful, well-considered judgement based on conscience, reasoning and humane principles (often the voice of Bhagavan within us). This is a safety mechanism built into Hinduism to ensure that we don't fall for traps by any who unscrupulously or unwittingly insert wrong things into our sacred scriptures. As a very simple example, you can see countless sites where missionaries or islamis (example: Zakir Naik in U-tyoob) go about declaring that their jehovallah is "predicted" in the Bhavishya Purana 'hence us Hindoos ought to convert to christoislamism'. Yeah, right. Mwahahahahahahhaaa.
Am not fond of a broken record either, but certain things are worth repasting/repeating, like what our sages had said long ago:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yuktiyuktamupa'deyam' vacanam' ba'laka'dapi anyam'trn'amiva tyajyamapyuktam' padmajanmana'.
"Even if a young boy says something logical it should be accepted;
and even if the lotus-born Brahma says something illogical, it should be rejected like a straw."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kevalam' sha'strama'shritya'm' na karttavyovinirn'ayah yuktihiina' vica'retu dharmaha'ni praja'yate.
"It is undesirable to accept anything just because it is written in the scriptures;
for if the illogical sayings therein be accepted and acted upon, it results in the loss of dharma."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(All those funny apostrophes are not mine. I just CPed as usual.)
In this case, my view is that conduct and character alone determine what one is. And in this my opinion chimes in happily with the reliable words/actions of (1) and (2) above.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Acharya Hajari Prasad
from kshatriya vIrya and sUdra womb are born mlechchha-s,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This Acharya must be writing in a time later than the Mahabharatam, as in the epic's time Mleccha referred to a different community with its own language - one that the princely Pandavas did not have any hesitancy in consorting with. (House of wax episode.)I have used the term 'mlechcha' lots of times in the rather medieval sense of total 'barbarian' (as was used for islami invaders back then). I use it for christoislamic terroristas and other genocidal maniacs or facilitators of genocide like Kissinger.
Based on all the above, I disagree - and have reason to disagree - with Acharya "Hajari Prasad Dwivedi vAngmay kosha" on that statement of his pasted in #125.
A person of any parentage/ancestry, may or may not be like either of his parents. Certainly, from my own experience, I am hardly anything like my grandparents - so I do know it from first-hand 'observation'.
One may have one or more ancestors of horrible character and still be a very good person. For example, look how different Dara Shikoh was from his psycho ancestors and other near-relatives. On the other hand, one may have wonderful ancestors and be a total Loosah (too many examples to count in modern-day India, sadly). What I am trying to say here was said far better by Yudhisthira -
That birth does not determine Varna, only character does (and consequently conduct - because character guides behaviour).
And as regards character, it is not fixed in life either. One can evolve within a single lifetime (just as one does over several), with our qualities improving as we go along. So just 'cause we're(/I'm) not Bhishma doesn't mean we're a lost cause or that we might as well throw ourselves over a balcony and get it over with (or something drastic like that <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).Edited: to remove repetition of post (with minor changes)