• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Marriage expenses of Tamil Brahmins

Status
Not open for further replies.

kunjuppu

Active member
I am for individual privacy. If laws of the land are not broken, and there is no outside pressure, what one does in their private life should not bother others. If someone wants to spend extravagantly on a wedding, birthday, or any other even it can be news item, but others do not have the right to judge them.

If promode Mittal spends billions, it is his prerogative, one can be envious that they did not make the list, but is of concern to him alone.

yes legally no issue here. but one of morality. and decency. coming from a poor country like india and spending $50 million on a single wedding? if that sounds ok and right to you, i rest my case.
 

prasad1

Active member
yes legally no issue here. but one of morality. and decency. coming from a poor country like india and spending $50 million on a single wedding? if that sounds ok and right to you, i rest my case.

Mr. K,
I am not saying that I do not judge and talk behind the back of someone, and ridicule them in private. So I am not saying that I am holier than you.

But if Mittal spends $50M is sin according to us, then a poor man may say that if I spend Rs 10,000.00 on a meal for 10 is sinful too. I just did it in this trip to India. Where do we draw the line>
 

Raji Ram

Active member
... I buy fancy poly silk sarees in the range of 250 to 600 and they look as grand as the silk saree

if the combination is good and if we make tassels in the pallu! :thumb:
Some of them are in this photo:

IMG_0570.JPG

 
But if Mittal spends $50M is sin according to us, then a poor man may say that if I spend Rs 10,000.00 on a meal for 10 is sinful too. I just did it in this trip to India. Where do we draw the line>

.....For which there is no answer!


The ironical (or should I say hypocritical) thing is people who are proud to be irreligious and claim morality is not dependent on religion conveniently seek to blame religion!
 
கால பைரவன்;220771 said:
.....For which there is no answer!


The ironical (or should I say hypocritical) thing is people who are proud to be irreligious and claim morality is not dependent on religion conveniently seek to blame religion!
the concept of religion has survived centuries though morality has nothing to do with religiosity. morality to decide what is right and what is sin depends on the persons individual belief and thinking. IMO there is no need to blame religion for all happenings
 

kunjuppu

Active member
கால பைரவன்;220771 said:
.....For which there is no answer!


The ironical (or should I say hypocritical) thing is people who are proud to be irreligious and claim morality is not dependent on religion conveniently seek to blame religion!

dear K, not sure where you can extrapolate that extravagancy in weddings to religion. the former, i think, is bad taste/crime/sin and any such bad ideas.

religion is completely different. as you very well know.

not many who spent money on weddings are really religious. chances are, at this wedding, champagne flowed like water. a few cows sheep pits fish all lost their lives. some ducks suffered through stuffed liver to provide patedefoiegras. ...this is what i mean by extravagance. an opportunity to show the world, that there is morality in simplicity, has been lost.

that is all...btw by doing this, mittal does not win any brownie points in barcelona or europe. barcelona folks complained about the special treatment and traffic jams this ensued. europe wondered how a poor country can afford such extravagance...
 
dear K, not sure where you can extrapolate that extravagancy in weddings to religion....
Oh dear K, aren't you following the thread, My dear loving brother's potshot is about me. Take a look at these posts:

Post #137: You said "this is a sin."
Post #141: My dear brother replied: "
Certainly not."
Post #144: I responded: "
If it is not, shame on religion, it should be one ...."
Post $148: Answering
jaisiyaraam, I explained the connection between "sin" and religion

Now, my dear loving brother has come striding in to take this potshot Lord Rama style, hiding behind somebody else's post. This is their modus operandi. He could have asked me to explain myself like
jaisiyaraam did, but no, that would mean no potshot. Well, well ...



 

kunjuppu

Active member
all the janes whom i know wear skirts, dresses or pant suits. no pattupavadai. i guess they shun them. :) no, they do not sell them either as most of them are professionals, and do not involve in retail. besides there is no market for pattu pavadais in toronto
 
One thing that is good. But here in India... At least they must be selling. Of course, Maha Periyavar asked our ayyarmaamis to shun pattupudavai. Did they hear? Perhaps No because of noise pollution. My wisdom says "no pattupudavai" does not mean less expenses. They money will go under a different head.
 
dear K, not sure where you can extrapolate that extravagancy in weddings to religion. the former, i think, is bad taste/crime/sin and any such bad ideas.

Dear Kunjuppu,

It is not I who did the extrapolation. From your post it is clear you did not implicate religion either.

In this forum, the irreligious have a tendency to blame religions for everything and project themselves as repositories of morality. Therefore, I point out the hypocrisy when religion is expected to come to their aid.

The irreligious taking potshots on religious is the shameful behavior that is on display here!

BTW, at the least for argument sake, you could answer Prasad's question on where do you draw the line for extravagance
 
My dear loving brother KB is once again taking swipes without directly addressing me, what is it with you guys, never willing to go toe-to-toe, but use such words as hypocrisy and shameful behavior at me like as though your day is not complete unless you do something like that?

If you don't agree with what I am saying talk to me, I welcome that. However, comments directed at me the person like hypocrite and shameful has got to stop. I am going to let this one slide, but don't expect me to tolerate it again and again.

Now, take a look at the chronology, I listed it in my post #157, it is easy to see that I didn't just waltz in willy nilly and take potshots at religion -- even if I did, that was nothing personal against you or the religious people. "Sin" is a religious concept and therefore my comment about religion was completely relevant. We can debate about whether my comment was accurate or not, I would welcome such a debate, but to make overly generalized statements like " the irreligious have a tendency to blame religions for everything" and say things like hypocrisy and shameful is quite unacceptable to me.

Don't tell me this was about irreligious people and make this into another "if the shoe fits" canard. Your comment was a response to mine and it was directed at me, and you know it, and I know that you know it. So let us not play that game.

KB, I am warning you, take it as a loving warning, I will no longer tolerate your swipes. If you want to comment about what I have stated, please do so and I welcome it. But, if you make such grossly unwarranted comments against me, directly or indirectly, I am not going to let it go any more, fair warning.
 
Last edited:

kunjuppu

Active member
கால பைரவன்;220936 said:
BTW, at the least for argument sake, you could answer Prasad's question on where do you draw the line for extravagance

there is no permanent or fixed line for extravagance. as a society we have a sense of decency. also the goodness of traits like charity is absolute.

bill gates is giving away most of his wealth within his lifetime. his purpose is to make a difference while still alive. and he is making that difference.

50 million dolla can do a lot of things in india that can make a difference. 50 million dolla in barcelona is waste because it did not do anything to anybody in the society. except brought some contempt for indians from the locals there.

i have written here before that my older son married in a city hall with parents and siblings present. then a restaurant lunch & dinner.

to me that is good enough.

i went to marriages where 50 lakhs was spent...back to back 4 marriages in chennai past 3 years. the parents wanted to spend the money because they earned it themselves. to me, that is extravagance. there are nobler ways of spending that money, ie do it such that it makes a difference in someone's lives.

i know this is a hard sell. i have the same issue within my family. convincing to give. so i keep on pounding..that's all in the hope that எறும்பு ஊர கல்லும் தேயும். that is all.
 

prasad1

Active member
Mr. KB,
You must be shuddering in your boots (or slippers). You have been warned. LOL:behindsofa:

Please allow the same privilege, that one claims for themselves.
The word SIN used by Mr. K was to signify a moral or ethical issue, and may not have any religious connotation. Even though SIN comes from Abrahamic religions. I assumed Mr. K meant a moral judgement. We all judge others, I was interested in knowing the limits.

Sorry Mr. K i did not see your post.
 
Last edited:
Now, take a look the chronology, I listed it in my post #157, it is easy to see that I didn't just waltz in willy nilly and take potshots at religion -- even if I did, that was nothing personal against you or the religious people. "Sin" is a religious concept and therefore my comment about religion was completely relevant. We can debate about whether my comment was accurate or not, I would welcome such a debate, but to make overly generalized statements like " the irreligious have a tendency to blame religions for everything" and say things like hypocrisy and shameful is quite unacceptable to me.

Don't tell me this was about irreligious people and make this into another "if the shoe fits" canard. Your comment was a response to mine and it was directed at me, and you know it, and I know that you know it. So let us not play that game.
KB, I am warning you, take it as a loving warning, I will no longer tolerate your swipes. If you want to comment about what I have stated, please do so and I welcome it. But, if you make such grossly unwarranted comments I am not going to let it go any more, fair warning.

I am not sure what your problem is. Just like how you expressed your view about what constitutes shamefulness viz-a-viz religion, I expressed my view: only about irreligious. Instead of warning me, you could write why my view is not accurate. My post on irreligious is as warranted as your comment on religion. My post is a generalized comment as you say - not a personal attack. What is your beef or vendakkai?


 
You must be shuddering in your boots (or slippers). You have been warned. LOL
This is a matter between me and KB, you butt out .... you promised in PM you will refrain from making comments about me, and you are already breaking your promise.

... Even though SIN comes from Abrahamic religions. I assumed Mr. K meant a moral judgement. ...
Sin = பாபம், it is very much part of all flavors of Hindu religion.

We all judge others, I was interested in knowing the limits.
I am not interested in judging others. My point was the kind of norm any social system promotes. A system that does not care about literally billions who toil for day-to-day survival though they work long hard hours each and every day while a few individuals amass such disproportionate amount of wealth as to spend 50 million euros on just an event, is a broken system. This is what I am talking about. A religion which answers "certainly not" to the statement "it is a sin" is a broken religion, shame on such a religion.

Christianity says such rich men have as much chance of entering heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle, at least, let me repeat, at least, the Christians recognize that grossly disproportionate wealth distribution is not good.

This is what I am talking about. So, please understand before criticising, I am not judging any individual, let Mittal or Ambani or whoever, spend any amount on anything.
 
கால பைரவன்;220948 said:
I am not sure what your problem is. Just like how you expressed your view about what constitutes shamefulness viz-a-viz religion, I expressed my view: only about irreligious.
KB, don't be daft. The reference to "the irreligious" was specifically directed at me, you know that, and I know it. The generalization was your comment about the irreligious, i.e. me, "have a tendency to blame religions for everything". I have highlighted the generalization you have done so that it can enter your obviously compromised consciousness.

(This is only a small taste what we can both avoid if only ....)

My வெண்டைக்காய் is you refrain from making statements like this from your post #161. If you comply we will be fine.

nstead of warning me, you could write why my view is not accurate.
This is the problem my loving dear brother, you have not stated your view, you are stuck with saying I am a hypocrite with shameful behavior. You have not said anything about what I am saying, all you did was a broadside.

State your view and I will debate it with you. Look at post #166, you have my argument there -- go ahead, give it a try, and we may yet have a nice discussion.
 
KB, don't be daft.


The feeling is mutual.




It is not necessary for a religion to have any say on the issue under discussion, i.e. the morality of extravagant spending. Therefore the question of shamefulness or otherwise of a religion on account of this issue does not arise.


The usage of the word "sin", it is clear, is only incidental. For the irreligious to find the relevancy to blame religion is at best an excuse to free themselves of any guilt for the prevalence of a society in which such extravagant spending is possible!
 
there is no permanent or fixed line for extravagance. as a society we have a sense of decency. also the goodness of traits like charity is absolute.

bill gates is giving away most of his wealth within his lifetime. his purpose is to make a difference while still alive. and he is making that difference.

I think you are mixing two different issues - this particular instance of extravagant spending and charity!

For all we know, Mittal could be contributing to charity as well.
 
Ok KB, I will take this improvement in tone and behavior as good enough ...

கால பைரவன்;220953 said:
It is not necessary for a religion to have any say on the issue under discussion, i.e. the morality of extravagant spending. Therefore the question of shamefulness or otherwise of a religion on account of this issue does not arise.
You see KB, when a thread gets started very often the discussion branches off in many directions. This thread is no different.

My comment specific to the statement "this is a sin" and the retort "certainly not". Concept of sin is a religious one, sin doesn't have any meaning for the irreligious like me. So, you seeing it as incidental notwithstanding, my comment was not irrelevant and my observation that it is shameful for a religion to emphatically say "certainly not" to the observation "it is a sin", is certainly a valid one. You may disagree with me that about it is shameful for a religion to not consider this as sinful, that is understandable. However, to say my comment was not relevant is counter factual.

.. For the irreligious to find the relevancy to blame religion is at best an excuse to free themselves of any guilt for the prevalence of a society in which such extravagant spending is possible!
Now this is an overreach. There is no "irreligion" that gives out doctrines of sin, guilt, etc., like the religions do.

Also, I am not exempting or excusing anyone from any responsibility for the excesses and injustices prevalent in a society. These are charges conjured up by you without any basis. If you read my posts in this thread dispassionately, you would have found my criticism of crony global capitalism also. The guilt of religion is one of omission, the guilt of the so called free market global capitalism is one of commission, their neo-liberal policies have made things worse for billions, produced intolerably gross and ugly disparities and injustices all over the world, while enriching a few people like Ambani and Mittal. In this respect, the guilt of capitalism is far worse than that of religion.

See KB, it is not difficult, we can have a nice discussion, still disagree on issues profoundly, and all this can be done without you calling me a hypocrite all the time. Hope we can keep the a some civility in future discussions.
 

tbs

0
hi

here the problem...somebody from hindu religion does something....ITS SIN.....if the same thing some other religious persons....

either muslim/christian ....THEN THERE IS NO SIN......why this KOLAVERI against hinduism?....if the same way...IF THIS SIN DONE

BY A BRAHMIN....then all BRAHMIN BASHERS start this KOLAVERI AGAIN....i can see here more hindu bashers/brahmin bashers

together....poor mittal...........HE IS NOT A TAMIL BRAHMIN.... so he escaped..lol
 
Ok KB, I will take this improvement in tone and behavior as good enough ...

My comment specific to the statement "this is a sin" and the retort "certainly not". Concept of sin is a religious one, sin doesn't have any meaning for the irreligious like me. So, you seeing it as incidental notwithstanding, my comment was not irrelevant and my observation that it is shameful for a religion to emphatically say "certainly not" to the observation "it is a sin", is certainly a valid one. .

First, just because an argument is relevant, it does not become valid! Second, the words you use repeatedly in quotes "certainly not" is merely a statement made by another individual contributor. To emphatically reply to that quote with words such as "shameful" is the problematic behavior in this thread and not my reply to such a behavior!

Now this is an overreach. There is no "irreligion" that gives out doctrines of sin, guilt, etc., like the religions do.

The guilt of religion is one of omission.....

I hope you realize how frivolous this argument is! An unprincipled man is not any better than a man who may not subscribe to the right principles. The irreligious are as guilty as the religious on this issue. Therefore, for the irreligious to point the finger at religion is at best self-serving. That is my view. It is not an overreach.
 
கால பைரவன்;220994 said:
First, just because an argument is relevant, it does not become valid!
KB, you need to read my posts carefully, and if you must object, do so on what I argue about, not what you imagine I am arguing.

I never claimed that the validity of my arguments must be accepted by you or anyone else. Please read my post with a little more care. I do not reject your right to question the validity of my arguments, my objection was only to your claim that my arguments were irrelevant, they are not. To me, my arguments are cogent and valid. You can dispute my assertion with valid arguments in return, but don't make things up.

Second, the words you use repeatedly in quotes "certainly not" is merely a statement made by another individual contributor. To emphatically reply to that quote with words such as "shameful" is the problematic behavior in this thread and not my reply to such a behavior!
This is your opinion. I am responding to statements made by members here. If you think the "certainly not" comment does not represent the truth of your religion, then you need to go after the member who made that comment, my dear brother sarang. Why are you coming after me instead?

Alright, I will offer you this, please talk to my dear brother sarang and decide between the two of you whether the "certainly not" comment was frivolous or must be taken seriously. I will abide by whatever decision you two arrive at.

I hope you realize how frivolous this argument is! An unprincipled man is not any better than a man who may not subscribe to the right principles. The irreligious are as guilty as the religious on this issue. Therefore, for the irreligious to point the finger at religion is at best self-serving. That is my view. It is not an overreach.
Oh oh, slow down, what are you talking about? Who is unprincipled, who is better? Don't just throw such loaded words indiscriminately. Give more context and explanations, otherwise, I wouldn't be misplaced in thinking you are being an idiot. I know, you will turn around and call me an idiot, but you would do so out of spite.

I am irreligious, I readily and gladly admit to it. By this I don't forfeit my right to comment on religion. If I point out shameful aspects of religion of course that would seem self-serving to you guys. But the real test is whether the criticism is true or not. So, KB, say what you have to say, tell me my arguments are self-serving, repeat it a hundred times, if that will make you feel better, unburden to the extent necessary for your own sanity, then, look at the question that still remains unanswered -- why does your religion not list amassing obscene amounts of wealth as a sin, though drinking water while standing is a sin, and a host of other inanities?

KB, don't get emotional, stick to the points ....
 
Nara said:
, otherwise, I wouldn't be misplaced in thinking you are being an idiot. I know, you will turn around and call me an idiot, but you would do so out of spite.


It is my prerogative to consider anyone daft and idiotic if that person fails to understand the context in which I am writing. Only that I have the civility to not start calling people daft and idiotic which you seem to lack! But that does not mean I will refrain from paying anyone back in the same coin even if you consider it being said out of spite!


Nara said:
I am irreligious, I readily and gladly admit to it. By this I don't forfeit my right to comment on religion. If I point out shameful aspects of religion of course that would seem self-serving to you guys.

My view is that it is shameful and self-serving for an irreligious person who is equally guilty on an issue to point the finger at religion. This would seem uncivil to you but it is only as civil or uncivil as your take on the religious! Just like you do not forfeit your right to comment on religion, I reserve my right to comment on the irreligious! What is good for the goose is good for the gander!


Nara said:
But the real test is whether the criticism is true or not.

My criticism of the irreligious on this issue is as valid or invalid as your criticism on religion. Take it or leave it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks