--- In [email protected], anon_couscous_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], anon_couscous_ff > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > That it [the Onion article] was an effective satire > > > [of the caste system] is obvious. Case closed. > > > > Well, since I'm not bound to live my life the way you > > think I should, I'll reopen it, in its own thread. :-) > > My wording was not well-crafted. I did not mean to imply that the > thread or topic should be closed -- but rather we are not obligated to > discuss something you feel we should (was the satire effective), and > ignore all others (the different types of satire) -- because you deem > them "diversions". > > But since you raise the topic in its OWN thread, well that changes > everything. :) > > > I honestly believe that a lot of folks here ARE > > uncomfortable with the subject of the caste system > > coming up on this forum. And I think that the reason > > they're uncomfortable with this is that Maharishi > > *clearly* believes in it and supports it, and they're > > *embarrassed* by the fact that he believes in it. > > Well MMY says a lot of things that an employee and tight, close > follower would and should feel uncomfortable with. Thats why a lot of > people who were such, are no longer (close followers). I think the > latter is a much larger group here, and in the world, is much larger > that the former. So when you say "a lot of people", its a bit odd to > me -- its a relatively small group. > > > Only a couple of weeks ago, someone posted a long > > quote of Maharishi's in which he not only supported > > the concept of the caste system, > > The BIG question is how various parties are defining the LABEL "caste > system". I think there are many different connotations and > implications for the same word. Without clearly defining the what the > words "caste system" means to then, people are discussing apples and > oranges. Or apples and fish. > > In his MMY high level way -- a la "its easier for people to learn the > craft, business or professon of thier family -- and then they have > more time for spiritual stuff." Thats basically HIS definition. He > didn't say anything or support social discrimination, sub-castes, or > even inter-caste marriage (which the vedas allow -- with guidelines). > I tend to agree with anon on this one. What I recall of Maharishi saying about caste was just that, that society operates most efficiently when family dharmas are maintained.
Does this provide huge potential for abuse? Of course. Look what has happened both in India and Britain where the class/caste system is used not to promote the well being of society, but to 'keep people in their place'. Really damaging stuff. On the other hand, what MMY is talking about in a practical way is really just common sense, that someone coming from a family of writers for example, may encounter a great difficulty in becoming an Indy 500 race car driver. 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/
