is drinking okay?

[arratai_virumbi]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

dear all!

I think I've offended you all quoting from what I read. Well I can't help it... Drinking and intoxication is a major social maladise of our society.

I couldn't tolerate any soft approach on this sensitive issue affecting millions of Indians.

Re why shudras are not prohibhited ? is my guess work.If my reasoning is unpalatable , you can laugh at it no harm.

I just want to stick to the topic and drive a point on what our IMPORTANT, FAMOUS and much followed ITIHASAA'S to say about it.

Thanks

 

[anandb]

Well, every single yog tradition i know maintains that Shiva did drink bhang. But did not get intoxicated. Bhang, when drunk a wee bit like prasad does not produce any adverse effects. It was treated as medicinal.

Mahabharat says Parashurama drank. An wondering if Krishna also drank. What is wrong with it. They were warrior tribes. It was allowed for them.

Where did i justify it ? I do not beleive in drinking to the extent of intoxication. I dunno if anyone is offering liquor to any god now. As far as i know, the answer is no in all castes and yes in some tribes. But i hear some tamil 'low' castes offer liquor to Shiva, dunno how far it is true.

And why bring Paramacharya's words into the pic for every single thing?

My point is what are we trying to prove here by saying Shiva or Parasurama drank in those times. Does it justify our drinking in the present age? I can accept someone who says, “yes, I drink and what’s wrong with it? Than someone who says, those days even Shiva or Parasurama or Krishna drank so what is wrong in drinking. If someone does not have a complex about drinking or eating meat they would just say “I don’t find any harm in drinking or eating meat ”, pure and simple. I simply don’t find a necessity to drag Shiva, Krishna or Parasurama into this. These are elevated beings and I simply cannot find a comparison between what they did and what we do. I quote the Paramacharya because he is my reference point.


The underlined lines can seem somewhat contradictory. Yes gorging was not present, but consumption certainly was present.

Ofcourse Paramacharya said the right thing by saying it was allowed as prasada. If an animal is sacrificed, you think all parts of it are cooked? And if it is a sacrifical animal, where everyone shares the consumable-meat part, then how much portion will each person get? They sacrifice only one goat and an entire group of atleast 50 people, sometimes the whole clan or village, will share it. If sharing with family, they will get only the size smaller than the centre of your palm, as prasadam. If sharing with the village, they get only that pea-sized portion.

This is kind of blasphemy. I don’t think the Paramacharya said prasada because it was the politically right thing to say. I think the topic is about brahmanas eating meat and paramacharya’s comment is on the same. I sincerely don’t think the brahmana ate only a pea size because, 50 others had to share it because the intention here is very important. It is one thing to eat a pea size because that is what a Prasad is but another thing to secretly desire to eat more but cannot because the whole village had to share it. I also did not quote fully what he had said. While in the Niruda-Pasubandha, only one animal is sacrificed, there is a vajapeya yagna (the highest yagna performed by a Brahmin) where 23 animals are sacrificed but still the performing Brahmin and the rtviks take only the prasada. In the Aswamedha yagna performed only by kings, the rtviks again take only prasada.

I too have heard that in the past nothing was added to taste. But man has evolved a long way from being capable of eating raw meat or meat cooked without salt. With due respect to Paramacharya, i think this rule changed somewhere. Am not saying the meat is / was meant to be eaten for taste. It was not made tasty, but it was cooked with salt to make it consumable.

The very fact it was prasada for the Brahmins was the reason why it was supposed to be tasteless. It was quite possible that salt was added before distribution to others.

It was only much later, villagers used spices (call it the degradation of human desire of yeilding to the temptation of taste, it became similar to how muslims make biryani out of sacrificed meat). There are elderly people who still say that sacrifical meat was not meant to be eaten to serve the depraved taste of the tongue.


You are quoting acharya saying what we have been saying all along - that soma or sura was used in havans in the past. It was also consumed. Again, it was not meant to intoxicate. The small portion is the moderation part.

Again my point was to show how insignificant the quantity was.


Then why does one offer kumkum in the homam. It used to be the sacrifical animal's blood in the past. I remeber having seen something to this effect in the movie on Sri Adi Shankaracharya (the one by GV Iyer in Sanskrit). I think Sri Adi Shankara was the one who asked for blood to be replaced by blood coloured powder instead (?) but am not sure about this, will check out and let you know.

This was what the Acharya mentioned about the misconception that all yagnas involved sacrifices which were not. I honestly don’t know if blood was used or kumkum was used. I think what is important is whether it had sanction in the Vedas and not if people performed them or not. The purpose of the Bhakti movement itself was to remove the needless superstitions and beliefs among people.


No one here said the priests got drunk.

I did not mean you said it but relates to the fact that generally people justify saying they did this in the past, so why not now?


Well, animal sacrifices seems to have had its origin when man began settling from hunting to farming. But man still had to hunt to protect himself. He also had this idea of a 'super-power' and treating fire as a medium to that super-power. He preferred to offer his hunted meat or crop produce to god. His chants accompanying his ritual and later the elaborate structured stuff may have come later. Am not surprised animal sacrifices are part of vedic culture (bcoz it was very early on in timeline when man moved to civilization). I suppose you have read abt sacrifice of horses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvamedha

Well, there are lots of good things that are now attributed to the Vedic society so I cannot accept the fact that man was uncivilized in thought during those times. Just look at the Vedas and the lofty ideals that it propounds. Though the four main Vedas and the Upanishads may be divine and not written what about the numerous commentaries written on them by saints and rishis? Animal sacrifices are part of Vedic culture not because man was backward in his thoughts and uncivilized that time. It was because it was ordained in the Vedas which also ordained that such practices should be banned in kali Yuga. The beauty of our Vedic system is it prescribes various ways of approaching as befitting the swabhava of people in that yuga. Thus it was meditation and contemplation during Satya Yuga, ritual worship during Treta Yuga, idol and temple worship during Dwapara Yuga and Nama-Sankeertanam during Kali Yuga. Such a system which dates back to tens and thousands of years back, I will hardly call as moving towards civilization.


Yes ofcourse, no hindu is offering ashvas or gavas in any form as a sacrifice. It just the hapless poor bali ka bakra, the goat.

Well, cow slaughter in any form in our land is a kind of sacrifice. It is to the UPA government’s credit that in the last 5 years India has risen to be the third largest beef exporter in the world.


Well, ascetics have always been consuming what is given to them as bhiksha. Agastya ate meat given as bhiksha bhogam by an asura. Nobody is supposed to be a glutton gorging on anything.

You quote all the examples and then say that in the ancient "none exist". It is each one's personal choice. If you do not believe in animal sacrifice, its your wish. There are villagers or tribals who still beelive in it, its their wish. If you do not beelive in meat and drink, agani it is your wish. If someone consumes these things, not as a glutton or a drunkard, then it is his wish (though the whole idea od buying meat from a kasai or consuming meat not offered as a sacrifice did not exist in the past, times have changed, haven't they - atleast the muslims still keep meat halal - given to god).

I meant “none existed” in the magnitudes you had mentioned. I know I cannot do anything to stop animal sacrifice or drinking or non-vegetarianism and that is not my wish as well. I believe it is a journey of the mind. I have Brit colleagues who have become vegetarians because they had been to slaughter houses and seen how animals are killed. Just google for “earthlings” and watch yourself. I don’t believe laws or anything can change anything. Ultimately it is the wish of the individual.

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Dear Mr. Happy HINDU!

You may be happy for being a hindu, but please don't poke pun in to other's belief.

Noone say their ancestors went to hell because they weren't baptized - this is a very sensitive religious issue.

Hope i didn't offend you.

Thanks

P.S as this is irrelevant to the topic discussed , let's not continue here.

kunjuppu-ji,

i really did find it funny in the beginning. i mean it did not make sense and i used to wonder at the claims.

but then i have come a long way getting to know different kinds of people over the past year, talking, asking and sometime making the other person a caste conscious casteist..

i also wonder if Christ's ancestors went to hell bcoz they were not baptized..

every religion faces this situation of being in a quagmire where people question things in it.

blessed are those who are able to accept without questioning, like my mum. we never tire of 'irritating' each other.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear arratai_virumbi,

Yes ppl are addicted to everything to the extent of gluttonery in this kaliyuga.

Then there are all sorts of health probs related to lifestyle probs.

But i suppose forbidden fruits always tempt. Given the freedom, they say abuse becomes rare.

Btw, did Vidura really say that? Can please let me know where?

And apart from vidura who are the others who said that drink is prohibitted completely? So far i only know the gita teaches us what are sattva foods..

 

[kunjuppu]

arattai,

this is a free world. as long as we keep our references to the post, and avoid personal remarks, we should all be ok.

when i read your quote 'Do you mean a person who quotes from our our Itihasas, is a insane person ? ' to arun, i think you could have worded it differently and yet come with the same meaning.

very often, we read a quiz or query, with an assumed sneer. this is after all a written medium, which we do multiple translations internally, before cognizing its intent.

we also filter them, not only through our experiences, but also through our attitudes, which may be offensive, but perfectly manageable in a face to face interaction.

re your disclaimer, i think if i were arun, i would be surprised by the vehemance of your language.

re your strong feelings about the evil effects of alcohol, i respect that. after all, you are in line with gandhi, rajaji, mohammed and hitler and so i guess it is ok.

i am more curious as to whether you have ever partaken of kaLLu to have gone through the experience of being cleansed for its sinful connotations. or if you have been familiarized about intoxication, from the pages of books, however holy and venerable they may be.

hope you don't mind my query, as these are presented to you, in the humblest of platter, and not to infuriate you or tickle the suspicious fancies.

thank you.

 

[sapr333]

Sapr,

Vatsyayana supposedly was commissioned by a king to study the sexual habits of various people in various regions. He was a celibate brahmachari himself. He wrote what he saw, did not experience it himself.
.

I agree Domnique La Piere stayed in 300 shandies of calcutta to write 'City of Joy".. But Im not sure if 64 harems open heartedly permitted a hermit to witness and record it in pappers... May be, our society was more tolerant!!.

Anyways, I buy your points..

 

[sapr333]

i think, there appears to be an ambivalent attitude, even among those who consider drinking as not befitting a true brahmin.

personally, i like my drinks. to me, after a day's work, it is an easy and enjoyable method to rid of tensions acquired. nothing extraordinary about these tension, but they exist regardless.

others might do yoga, jogging or intense prayers. whatever works for you.

but i do have an objection for someone to point fingers. how quickly one forgets, that four other fingers are pointing back at you.

in excess, anything is harmful - be it alcohol, gambling, fasting or for that matter eating. it is upto each of us, to monitor ourselves.

i have also observed, there are those, who consider themselves to have 'erred' in the past by partaking alcohol and meat, and who have been 'reborn'. thus armed with the zealousy of the converted, i think, these folks go about swinging the whip of taliban on unsuspecting and unbothered simpletons.

it is time, maybe these folks, quietly practise what they preach and by doing so, set examples by doing what they say. consistently and over time, they might be able to convince others to their way of life.

but on the other hand, the converts, can also be reconverted to the old evil ways, which in my opinion, may not be so bad after all.

thank you.

Apologize me if im spamming here..

This is a master piece write up(rather eassy)..Its,diplomatic, blended with positive sarcasms, and conveys the right message in right tone in line with the forum objectives...

Mod . Shri.KRS, I think we should have a competition for the 'Best Posts of The Month' in this forum.. And I would nominate this..

btw,Im not sure, how much the participants would have understood the depth of his polished message..

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Dear Mr. Kunjuppu!

If you are gifted with words, please do re-arrange the words.

I was a bit taken back , when people question the sanity of a person quoting scriptures?

If you can word it nicely please do it so.

Does one need to experience fire, shock to get to know about it?
I've seen men , grown up men utterly defeated by the alcohol and fall like a dust in the streets literally - Does one need any more real eperience to know? It is a slow-poison, even the one having control over this habit, needs only a trigger point to go beserk.

A person with this habit is like playing with a venemous coiled serpent.

Please google search on alcoholism and learn its ill-effects.

I'm not that gifted in my liguistic skill , please excuse my language.

Thankks

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Anand,

My point is what are we trying to prove here by saying Shiva or Parasurama drank in those times. Does it justify our drinking in the present age? I can accept someone who says, “yes, I drink and what’s wrong with it? Than someone who says, those days even Shiva or Parasurama or Krishna drank so what is wrong in drinking. If someone does not have a complex about drinking or eating meat they would just say “I don’t find any harm in drinking or eating meat ”, pure and simple. I simply don’t find a necessity to drag Shiva, Krishna or Parasurama into this. These are elevated beings and I simply cannot find a comparison between what they did and what we do. I quote the Paramacharya because he is my reference point.

Yes am saying all this because some ppl can be sorta talibanical, like prohibiting this and that, all "based on scriptures". Am trying to say that hinduism accomodates all - irrespective of their diet practices. And also it is about plain curiosity about how the ancients lived.

Not sure why you wud say 'i do not want to drag Shiva, Krishna or Parashurama', but at the same time make only Paramacharya your reference point.


This is kind of blasphemy. I don’t think the Paramacharya said prasada because it was the politically right thing to say. I think the topic is about brahmanas eating meat and paramacharya’s comment is on the same. I sincerely don’t think the brahmana ate only a pea size because, 50 others had to share it because the intention here is very important. It is one thing to eat a pea size because that is what a Prasad is but another thing to secretly desire to eat more but cannot because the whole village had to share it. I also did not quote fully what he had said. While in the Niruda-Pasubandha, only one animal is sacrificed, there is a vajapeya yagna (the highest yagna performed by a Brahmin) where 23 animals are sacrificed but still the performing Brahmin and the rtviks take only the prasada. In the Aswamedha yagna performed only by kings, the rtviks again take only prasada.

When did i say that paramacharya said something bcoz it was the 'politically right thing to say'.

You yourself as saying they consumed that wee bit of meat as prasada. What is blasphemy here?


The very fact it was prasada for the Brahmins was the reason why it was supposed to be tasteless. It was quite possible that salt was added before distribution to others.

So it was possible that when distributed to others, salt was added, but the ritviks ate it without salt? Lets say, it is also quite possible they ate it raw, wud you say it was equal to a kinda cannibalism?


Again my point was to show how insignificant the quantity was.

Yes, i too am saying it was an insignificant portion. A very moderate one.

This was what the Acharya mentioned about the misconception that all yagnas involved sacrifices which were not. I honestly don’t know if blood was used or kumkum was used. I think what is important is whether it had sanction in the Vedas and not if people performed them or not. The purpose of the Bhakti movement itself was to remove the needless superstitions and beliefs among people.

Yes ofcourse all yagnas did not involve sacrifice. I suppose you have heard of yagnas being offered in the mind as well.

Bhakti movement came later. We are talking about the intervening stage of vedic and puranic.


I did not mean you said it but relates to the fact that generally people justify saying they did this in the past, so why not now?

It did happen in the past. What is the point of justifying or not justifying something now. If a man eats meat and drinks once in a while, all in moderation, what harm is he doing to himself or to others.


Well, there are lots of good things that are now attributed to the Vedic society so I cannot accept the fact that man was uncivilized in thought during those times. Just look at the Vedas and the lofty ideals that it propounds. Though the four main Vedas and the Upanishads may be divine and not written what about the numerous commentaries written on them by saints and rishis? Animal sacrifices are part of Vedic culture not because man was backward in his thoughts and uncivilized that time. It was because it was ordained in the Vedas which also ordained that such practices should be banned in kali Yuga. The beauty of our Vedic system is it prescribes various ways of approaching as befitting the swabhava of people in that yuga. Thus it was meditation and contemplation during Satya Yuga, ritual worship during Treta Yuga, idol and temple worship during Dwapara Yuga and Nama-Sankeertanam during Kali Yuga. Such a system which dates back to tens and thousands of years back, I will hardly call as moving towards civilization.

When did i say ppl were uncivilized during the vedic times? And why this long explanation to show the beauty of a system?

Well, man did evolve from being "uncivlized" roaming in the jungles, eating raw meat, then learning to cook it (after fire got discovered) and moved a long way to where he is now. Or not?

And where does it say animal sacrifices are banned in kali yuga? If am not wrong the verse that Paramacharya mentioned said no horses or cows. Does the verse say no hens and goats?

I think devi temples are the ones where animal sacrifices are still made in the north-east, like a chick or goat a day; and distributed among many. I suppose the priests and everyone else gets that pea-size portion.

Well, cow slaughter in any form in our land is a kind of sacrifice. It is to the UPA government’s credit that in the last 5 years India has risen to be the third largest beef exporter in the world.

Well, i do not eat beef, but have no probs with those who do. Am wondering where did suddenly UPA come in b/w here. Perhaps the ones who eat beef are still living in a different yuga (better yuga according to scriptures)?, while the hindu has long passed it and moved on to the kali..


I meant “none existed” in the magnitudes you had mentioned. I know I cannot do anything to stop animal sacrifice or drinking or non-vegetarianism and that is not my wish as well. I believe it is a journey of the mind. I have Brit colleagues who have become vegetarians because they had been to slaughter houses and seen how animals are killed. Just google for “earthlings” and watch yourself. I don’t believe laws or anything can change anything. Ultimately it is the wish of the individual.

Did i mention any magnitudes? And i thot i said 'Nobody is supposed to be a glutton gorging on anything'. Everyone knows in those days slaughter houses did not exist.

Sure am aware of the dangers meat eating brings. But that my dear is a health issue. So far however, you were speaking on a scriptural basis, based on paramacharya's words, about the portion and all.

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Dear Mr. Happyhindu

Nobody ties anybody - freedom is always there.

Why does VIDURAR 's word not enough ? does one need many?

Thanks

Dear arratai_virumbi,

Yes ppl are addicted to everything to the extent of gluttonery in this kaliyuga.

Then there are all sorts of health probs related to lifestyle probs.

But i suppose forbidden fruits always tempt. Given the freedom, they say abuse becomes rare.

Btw, did Vidura really say that? Can please let me know where?

And apart from vidura who are the others who said that drink is prohibitted completely? So far i only know the gita teaches us what are sattva foods..

 

[happyhindu]

I agree Domnique La Piere stayed in 300 shandies of calcutta to write 'City of Joy".. But Im not sure if 64 harems open heartedly permitted a hermit to witness and record it in pappers... May be, our society was more tolerant!!.

Anyways, I buy your points..

Yep the society seems to have been tolerant. No porn needed. No Voeyeurism in the mind. Neither were there any sexual crimes like rapes, because man seems to have got what he wanted, with or without a marriage.

Its all over in the khajuraho temples. Poeple did not seem to have considered it a crime to see.

It does look at a hermit was allowed to watch, with no malaise, ill-feeling or desire in his heart, he wrote what he found. He also seems to have referenced from a previous work anangaraga or something like that i forgot.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Mr. Happy HINDU!

You may be happy for being a hindu, but please don't poke pun in to other's belief.

Noone say their ancestors went to hell because they weren't baptized - this is a very sensitive religious issue.

Hope i didn't offend you.

Thanks

P.S as this is irrelevant to the topic discussed , let's not continue here.

Dear Mr.AV,

Just by wondering aloud if someone's ancestors went to heaven or not, nobody happens to be "poking fun" at anyone's religious beliefs.

Perhaps you did not hang out with Christians asking the same things and a lot-lot more on beleifnet - just by talking about it, they do not mean to offend. Everyone wonders at the religious precepts they have been handed down; and wonder what is so great about it, as much as the older people have made it out to be.

Nope you did not offend me.

Thanks.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Mr. Happyhindu

Nobody ties anybody - freedom is always there.

Why does VIDURAR 's word not enough ? does one need many?

Thanks

Please if you do not mind, can you let me know where did Vidura say that.

I mean if he did say that, it wud be interesting. Since Vidura was considered a shudra, it wud mean a lot else in my own scenario of things, like a shudra giving out statements on how a dwija must live, etc.

 

[sapr333]

Neither were there any sexual crimes like rapes, because man seems to have got what he wanted, with or without a marriage. .

This is the arguement which supports shariah's ' Polygamy'''.. Im not sure if its logically/socially ok with the current worldview...


But then, in my view, its a tool to suppresses women.... May be, women are prone to be utilized as a material, like how the kids use Barbies/mattel...Previous year's Barbies are chucked in to the dust bin and fresh one are got by parents as their birthday gift..

 

[happyhindu]

This is the arguement which supports shariah's ' Polygamy'''.. Im not sure if its logically/socially ok with the current worldview...


But then, in my view, its a tool to suppresses women.... May be, women are prone to be utilized as a material, like how the kids use Barbies/mattel...Previous year's Barbies are chucked in to the dust bin and fresh one are got by parents as their birthday gift..

Nope. A man getting what he wants, with or without a marriage is not related to the islamic polygamy.

Shariah permits polygamy because the arab world had the ratio of men less than women (a lotta men tended to die in war) - it was to ensure all women cud have married status.

Yep, when anything become religious sanctioned, it might become a tool to abuse (depends on the man though, not the religion).

 

[sapr333]

Nope. A man getting what he wants, with or without a marriage is not related to the islamic polygamy.

Shariah permits polygamy because the arab world had the ratio of men less than women (a lotta men tended to die in war) - it was to ensure all women cud have married status.

Dear HH,

Except for Kerala, Goa and northeast, rest of India has a poor sex ration... Do you think, India should permit polygamy, under the proposed common civil code?

Sorry,for dragging this discussion out of context to this thread..

 

[happyhindu]

Except for Kerala, Goa and northeast, rest of India has a poor sex ration... Do you think, India should permit polygamy, under the proposed common civil code?

Sorry,for dragging this discussion out of context to this thread..

Sapr,

Its for the muslims themselves to discuss, come to a common consensus fairly acceptable to most of them, and then move towards asking for suitable legislation from the state.

I do not think a civil code or anything can be applied on anyone without their wishes being taken into account.

 

[sapr333]

Sapr,

>>>

My quote>>>>Except for Kerala, Goa and northeast, rest of India has a poor sex ration... Do you think, India should permit polygamy, under the proposed common civil code?

Response from HH>>>Its for the muslims themselves to discuss, come to a common consensus fairly acceptable to most of them, and then move towards asking for suitable legislation from the state.
I do not think a civil code or anything can be applied on anyone without their wishes being taken into account..

Dear HH, my question was based on the national context (lets keep aside the moslem topic). Should we permit polygamy, just because of short falls in sex ratio? Are you OK with this kind'a legislation? If so,why?

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HH, my question was based on the national context (lets keep aside the moslem topic). Should we permit polygamy, just because of short falls in sex ratio? Are you OK with this kind'a legislation? If so,why?

i do not undestand the context of "we"

why shd my judgemental stand make any diff to them.

its for the people involved to decide, it is their life.

legislation can happen only if it not forced upon someone in a democracy, i suppose.

 

[sapr333]

i do not undestand the context of "we"

Sorry, I missed to eloquent it.... I mean, INDIANS...here

 

[kunjuppu]

Dear Mr. Kunjuppu!

If you are gifted with words, please do re-arrange the words.

I was a bit taken back , when people question the sanity of a person quoting scriptures?

If you can word it nicely please do it so.

Does one need to experience fire, shock to get to know about it?
I've seen men , grown up men utterly defeated by the alcohol and fall like a dust in the streets literally - Does one need any more real eperience to know? It is a slow-poison, even the one having control over this habit, needs only a trigger point to go beserk.

A person with this habit is like playing with a venemous coiled serpent.

Please google search on alcoholism and learn its ill-effects.

I'm not that gifted in my liguistic skill , please excuse my language.

Thankks

arattai,

i would like to abjure any pretense of gift of words or language re the english tongue. i see it as those same 200 or so odd words, that we rearrange in several formats, to reflect different meanings and various moods.

i have already mentioned about our mental filters to you, in an earlier post. what we read is words, what we understand is what we filter through our prejudices, and maybe, not what necessarily what the author means. the right thing is to follow up with request for clarification.

perhaps you are justified in being shocked about the query presented to you. i think, a better response, is not to reply in kind ie in the same way you perceived the comment or taunt. titting for tat serves no purpose.

instead, request verification and further explanation. that way, not only have you disarmed any potential threat to your status, but also given the other person a chance to explain.

don't you think, that this is a better to resolve an issue, than degenerating into a verbal duel. these catfights are great spectacles for people to watch, but seldom resolve any issues. all that is left is damaged egos and hurt pride. that is what i think anyway.

maybe this is the time to tell you a story, which happened a while ago, re my continuing education from that famous school ie 'the one of hard knocks'.

about 2 years ago, when i was already an old geezer, but not forum smart, i got into a verbal gunfight with another poster in another forum. believe me, it was brutal on both sides, with no holds barred.

when it came too much for me, i quit the forum and while i was licking my wounds, had time to reflect on myself.

i found that i do not like fighting. maybe it was because i lost; but more important, i did not feel good about myself after that and it bothered me. the bad taste would not go away, no matter in whatever way i tried to justify my actions to myself. plainly i was ashamed of myself.

so i tended an abject apology to my erstwhile adversary and resolved that from then on, i will learn myself to fine tune my postings. with which i have mostly succeeded, i feel.

the net effect of this trauma, was to release me from my instant-response-anger mode, to one of patience and persistence.

apart from generating overall goodwill, this approach has turned my conscience once again to pristine levels of purity. i only have love now for my ex adversary.

nowadays, i also have a guardian angel here. the angel watches over me, and does not hesitate to pull me up, should i indulge in any transgressions. that too helps.

so, dear arattai, the bottom line, is to keep opposing views engaged. ultimately there are more things in common, than what divides us.

to me, each posting is a challenge, but something i have come to enjoy. ultimately, you may experience the same.

by the way, i agree with you, that there is no need to inject a hiv infected needle to understand the malaise of aids.

but we can drive a car safely, following the rules of the road, get to places while quite enjoying the ride. can't we? in my books, a glass of claret is more akin to a car than a hiv needle.

hope that helps.

thank you

ps.. you have excellent english in my opinion. but then, i am no judge of the english language.... just kidding mon.. have a giggle, and enjoy the sojourn here.

 

[hariharan1972]

Dear HH,

Except for Kerala, Goa and northeast, rest of India has a poor sex ration... Do you think, India should permit polygamy, under the proposed common civil code?

Sorry,for dragging this discussion out of context to this thread..

chief sapr,

"poor sex ratio" means lesser females per 1000 males. so it shouldnt be polygamy but polyandry that india should be legalising.

having said that, there is no need to legalise polygamy, if one is following MM Act instead of Hindu Marriage Act.

MM Act - Mu ka Marriage Act - oru manaivi ; oru thunaivi.

 

[hariharan1972]

let me try to bring the focus of the thread back to it's moorings.

the concern of care5 is probably a reflection of the crossroads at which the brahmin community finds itself ;

on one side is the fact that brahmins cannot but embrace the changes in the society and we can no longer afford to live in islands of excellence. by this i am not for a moment suggesting that taking to the bottle is a change that we should adapt to but we should if required not hesitate to venture into a pub in discharge of our official responsibilities.

it is a fact that the social values re : drinking have undergone a sea change ; yours truly was once part of a group enjoying a brunch at one of the leela's celebrating our colleague's job offer at bermuda. part of our group was a heavily pregnant colleague, sipping 'sparkling wine' along with us.

sundays, otherwise reserved for more kozhambu and the likes was spent sipping several glasses of sparkling wine (on the house you see and hence the indulgence, he he ) and sampling the various salads.

pregnant woman sipping wine was probably an obnoxious thought couple of decades ago. not now ; not anymore.

i am of the view that is plain naivety to judge others by our value systems. our value systems are for us, others have their own and there's no rule that fits all.

having said that, i sense from the words of care5 that he cares about certain last standing vestiges of brahmins that distinguishes a community which for long has been known to be in religious service.

so, if one by choice has adopted the vocation of religious service, shouldnt he be true to it ? he better be.

a constitutional expert, obviously cannot disregard the constitution ;
a criminal lawyer swears by the Cr Pc;

so why shouldnt a brahmin priest or any other priest for that matter adotp a pristinely lifestyle, unwavering in his committment to the service of the lord and resist the temptations of the common folk.

afterall abstaining from liquour isnt half as difficult as being a celibate.

i find this argument tenable and not out of place.

so the need to abstain from the worldly pleasures of teachers, bag piper, christian brothers or a cabernet sauvignon should perhaps be decided by the chosen vocation and not merely because one is a brahmin.

i also recently read that the scientists are now starting to doubt the goodness of alcohol.

Alcohol’s Good for You? Some Scientists Doubt It

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/health/16alco.html

and here's my take.

Doubts have now been cast
On worth of hitting the bottle
Does it really do any good
As we run life at full throttle

Truth is still deep in the dark
Even as we unscrew next cork
Will it cause a temporary halt
To the next bottle of single malt

Will it send distillers into panic
Reducing Sales of cognac and tonic
Or will spirits show their command
Proving liquor’s inelastic demand

Scientists’ words are still not final
The research undoubtedly seminal
It may not have done much to rattle ; But
Caution advised, before the next bottle

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Hari,

Your poetry is amazing. My son is a published poet and if you want, I can connect you two.

I also agree with your view.

True Brahmins would never touch alcohol.

Those are probably about 2% of our community now, if not less.

For the rest of us, who think we are Brahmins, please understand first your percentage of Brahminism within you.

Taking a drink or two every day should show up very far down in the list of what a Brahmin should not do. Let not the twenty percenters judge the ten percenters or the five percenters.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sapr333]

chief sapr,

"poor sex ratio" means lesser females per 1000 males. so it shouldnt be polygamy but polyandry that india should be legalising.

having said that, there is no need to legalise polygamy, if one is following MM Act instead of Hindu Marriage Act.

MM Act - Mu ka Marriage Act - oru manaivi ; oru thunaivi.

Sorry, I stand corrected