Sapr,
A few things (to end my conversation on this thread):
I was raised for most part of my life by my father's mum, an orthodox lady, who on many days prayed in wet clothes. As a kid, i too wud imitate her and wud dash off at times from in-between prayers to play with neighbourhood kids in wet clothes (nobody put any restrictions on that or anything). Till date, my spouse and i tend to go straight from the bath to the prayer.. you might consider all of this as untouchability or theetu of sorts.
However, this is about our personal space. We firmly do not beleive in differentiating b/w men.
Back home, in every place we stayed, my parents ensured the maids and their kids maintained personal hygiene. They had to bathe with dettol water in an closed enclosure in the backyard before entering the house, keep their nails cut and clean, had to wash hands with soap after each visit to the toilet, etc (same rules applied to us as well). And i spent many evenings playing with the maids' kids who joined the other kids too. Till date i do not know the castes of all those kids i played with.
The question was only with hygiene and it was handled well.
Here in this thread, you will find ppl who will justify untouchability for various reasons. They will use all sorts of examples, etc..most part of which will appear as disconnected to others but analogous to them, in their desire to justify a situation of social-organization, that appears as dharma or a religiously ordained thing to them.
Please be informed that untouchability is not sanctioned in the vedic texts. It is mentioned nowhere there. The rig vedic times were possibly akin to primitive farm life. The atharva-veda 3.4.2 (tvam vishvo vrnatam...pradisha: pancha devi:..ugro vi bhaja vasuni) talks of a king being designated or elected (pradishati = elect(ed) / declared / designated) probably from a class of warriors...there is no inclination of any heredity kingship in any of the vedic texts.
However, things became designated as heredity in the period of puranas and dharmasutras that came after the vedic period; and we currently have ppl that (falsely) claim to be descended as kshatriyas from the vedic period; akin to the brahmins who claim to have originated from the vedic period..
There are very many reasons for the disconnet b/w vedic hindusim and puranic hindusim. We shall not go into the reasons. But when you wish to critically evaluate anything, please take the whole pic into consideration. Whatever was the social organization came about due to the need for better administration, to accomodate various ppl.
The untouchables were basically workers on whose labour a kingdom was dependent upon. They were important and not taxable. The brahmins were asked not to approach these people for bhiksha since the state was not taxing them either. Instead a brahmin bikshuk went to the households of the merchants and other ppl. Thus came the idea that a brahmin needed to "treat" someone as an untouchable or not go near someone. There is no "religious" sanction as such for untouchability of the dharma (or dharma sutra) kind. Those dharma sutras are merely law books like a constitution needed to run a kingdom or confederation of tribes. There were diff law books in diff periods of time followed by diff ppl. Everyone did not have a class that was exempt from shulka or bali (tax). The class of untouchables varied under different kings. A defeated warrior group cud also be made into a class of untouchables. This social structure was essentially not religious in nature.
The great savant saint Sri Ramanuja tried to convey this by leaning on the shoulders of dhanurdaasa. Yet, some people, mired as they are, in their great desire to be religious to the core, failed to understand the synchronicity. Whatever ppl follow at home, like not touching anyone during prayer are what is done in the desire to see themselves as clean when they present themselves to god and followed so that one does not allow themselves to be distracted from the prayer. It is not to differentiate against anyone at all.
If you really wish to judge, then please judge the individuals here. Not the community. The brahmin community is essentially a progressive one. It is true that hindusim owes a lot to this class of ppl, for being what they are.
There are very many of them living their life quietly as orthodox brahmins or as regular ppl, not making a mess by justifying or being verbose abt these things. The ones that speak here are (to me) the pseudo-orthodox ones, who are a very small micro-minority within the brahmin communites and do not represent the larger brahmanical communites. So, please judge them (if you so wish to) as individuals alone.
Thanks.
who is writing about various mutts like a 'mutt'!as i conseider them as pillars of just not india but bhu-loka as well as other lokas.i wish i knew to be diplomatic in not bringing in various religious personalities.
