--- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > Absolutely. But that form of elitism is no worse than > > > > > the one at the heart of the Indian caste system. Elitism > > > > > is elitism. IMO trying to justify it on the basis of who > > > > > is more highly evolved vs. less highly evolved is more > > > > > smarmy and less honest than justifying it on the basis > > > > > of who has da most money. > > > > > > > > Unless, of course, you believe you know of a simple > > > > method that can be practiced by individuals to raise > > > > their level of evolution and erase the differences. > > > > > > Does "raise their level of evolution and erase the differences" > > > imply that with TM a vaisha becomes a brahman as they "evolve" > > > spiritually? > > > > If the castes are based on level of evolution, that > > would seem to be the inevitable conclusion, yes. > > > > > Rather, it would seem, in an "enlightened" society, sudras, vaishas > > > andBfahmans would be "enlightened", doing their roles using their > > > highest potential. But not doing the same thing. > > > > But in that case the castes would *not* be based on > > level of evolution of consciousness. > > > > How the various roles would be assigned in a society > > in which a caste system based on level of consciousness > > had vanished because everyone's on the same level, I > > have no idea. It's a good question. Maybe folks take > > turns doing whatever needs to be done? > > > > In any case, there wouldn't be any "elitism." > > I think an enlightened skilled craftsman -- aka a blue collar guy -- > will always pursue his craft as consciousness unfolds, and not > suddenly start reciting the vedas for a living.
You could be right; I really wouldn't know. But I should think it's conceivable that an enlightened Brahmin would toss out all his books and ritual implements and so on and take up a craft, or go into business, or become a farmer, because he gets a kick out of working with his hands or buying and selling or planting things and watching them grow. Who knows what even the most skilled of craftsmen really yearns to be doing in his heart of hearts? Maybe writing poetry. Seems to me in an enlightened society people would be free to do what they most enjoy doing. That leaves open the question of who cleans the toilets, but if you were enlightened you presumably wouldn't mind taking a turn at that on a rotating basis. > Elitism perhaps comes from weakness, arrogance, not feeling > fulfilled in ones role and life. Like racism. "I may be a loser, > but I am an x, so at least I am not a y". Sure, so if everyone is enlightened, there would presumably be no elitism. (I think that's what I just said.) > Most of us have some inferior connotation associated with sudras. We do? > Why? I was researching my family tree and found my gggfather and > gggfather were furniture designers. To my surprise, their pieces > are featured in art books and musuems across the country. One of my grandfathers taught vocational school and was a skilled carpenter. The other was a farmer. ??? > They are > noted as the pre-eminent innovators of a particular style. Their > pieces are still recognized and sought by designers. I found > pictures of some pieces> and they are awesome and dazzling. But they were craftsmen. Working > with their hands--and minds. Probably sudras in the classic > designations. Should I feel shame because some anscestors were > sudras? Did anybody suggest you should? > That would be quite silly. They were at the top of their field, at > the top of their game. > > In this vein, I would guess most artists are sudras. Including > filmmakers. And actors. and musicians. So the Academy and Gramy > Awards are great extravaganzas of noted sudras. And much of the > world looks on in awe and even envy. While modern elites may look > down on actors and musicians, a vast majority of the public does > not -- media covers them extensively. > > Similiar with vaishas. Steve Jobs, the founders of Amazaon, Google > and Yahoo, etc, are vaishas. Does society look down on them? Not *this* society, but then we don't have a formal caste system, do we? Our *informal* caste system is based on success and wealth. > So I am not sure elitism is absolute, or fully prevelant across > castes. Sorry, but I'm not following your argument. What does any of this have to do with what may be in MMY's mind concerning the caste system in India? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
