[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
   
In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all 
the four groups in society.  However, they don't rule the 
people, nor do the hard work.  The brahmans are responsible 
for the priestly or advisory duties in society.  The kshatreyas 
are in charge of the executive and enforcement work.  For 
busines and mercantile work, the vaishas perform them.  The 
rest of the hard work is given to the sudras.

So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming a 
society or a community.  Anyone who doesn't fit in the system 
becomes a chandala, or the untouchables.
   
   Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during 
   one's lifetime?  Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya 
   become a Brahman?  Or can a Brahman who messes his life up end 
   up a sudra by the end of his life?
  
  In an ideal varna system...
 
 Which has never existed.
 
  ...the status in society is earned not inherited by families.  
  Those who have the aptitude for intellectual pursuits and 
  education should be considered as brahmanas. It should not 
  matter whether he or she was born under the other groups in 
  society.
 
 But it does. In India everyone knows your caste
 the moment they hear your last name. You are 
 consigned to the position allotted to that 
 caste *no matter what*. It controls your entire
 life -- how you are treated in restaurants and
 hotels, who you can marry, where you can work,
 everything. John's claim above is a fantasy, an
 ideal that has never once existed in the entire
 history of the caste system. 
 
 If John had been born a sudra, he could get 20 
 Ph.D.s and never be allowed to work in an intel-
 lectual capacity in India or even in an Indian-
 owned company in America. I've seen it happen in 
 programming. I worked on a large programming
 project for Pepsico, one that was staffed largely
 by an Indian company. The first step of the resume
 review process was to put all resumes with last
 names that were not Brahmins straight in the 
 trash bin. I sat in a room and listened to a few
 of these more evolved Brahmins brag about how
 they had beat the shit out of an Indian guy of
 another caste who had dared to ask a Brahmin woman 
 on a date. This was in New York, not Delhi.
 
 John is defending barbarism and institutionalized
 bigotry as if it were holy. Says a lot about his
 concept of religion.

It's human nature I guess, to want to think you are superior because of 
whatever...skin color, name, sex, big, small..it's all just human folly...
If there is a 'God', he or she doesn't judge in this way...

The Europeans still have some kind of class system, based on family names...

Here in America, class is strictly based on the 'Almighty Dollar'

'In Krishna We Trust'...

R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 
  You used the word ideally below several times in answering 
  questions.
  
  I'm wondering whether ideally reflects your own feeling on 
  what is ideal (perhaps with a touch of the western idea of 
  meritocracy thrown in that is influencing the use of that 
  word) or whether that is, in fact, what the vedas say.
 
 I used the word ideal to differentiate the varna system 
 in actual practice in India.  As practiced today, the varna 
 system is a devolution of the intent of the vedas.
 
 You are right that I am inserting my own interpretation of 
 meritocracy as thought of in the western culture.  I believe 
 that the vedas had the same intent. 

I reply to this not to comment on John (jr_esq)
per se but on a larger phenomenon, the inability
to see the forest for the trees.

One of the failings that is *rampant* in the TMO,
and which I believe based on my experience in the
TMO came directly from Maharishi, is the tendency
to focus on the ideal (or even the idea) of some-
thing to the point where one is incapable of seeing
what the reality of that thing is.

John's idea of meritocracy isn't true *even in 
the TMO*. If it were, poor people could become 
Rajas, and even more telling, a few women might
be present running the TM movement as well. 

For other examples of clinging desperately to the
idea or ideal of something rather than looking at
reality, we need look no further than Global Good
News, which persists in reading the evening news
and claiming that we're knee-deep in Sat Yuga instead
of knee-deep in shit. Maharishi proposed the *idea*,
and if he threw it out, it must be true, right?

Wrong. Every religion or spiritual tradition in his-
tory has had some good ideas. But actual history does
not judge them by their ideas but by *what they 
actually accomplished*. By that standard, the legacy
of the Vedas is modern-day India. By the same standard,
the legacy of the TM movement may just be Vedaland.

It's *pleasant* to focus on the ideal and ignore
the reality. It can allow a True Believer to keep
believing, and think that he hasn't wasted his life.
But if the TB is honest, at some point in his life
he's really got to step back and assess whether the
path he dedicated his life to ever *lived up to* its
ideals. For many, that moment is likely to be on 
their deathbed. Some of us chose to make that 
assessment earlier.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   You used the word ideally below several times in answering 
   questions.
   
   I'm wondering whether ideally reflects your own feeling on 
   what is ideal (perhaps with a touch of the western idea of 
   meritocracy thrown in that is influencing the use of that 
   word) or whether that is, in fact, what the vedas say.
  
  I used the word ideal to differentiate the varna system 
  in actual practice in India.  As practiced today, the varna 
  system is a devolution of the intent of the vedas.
  
  You are right that I am inserting my own interpretation of 
  meritocracy as thought of in the western culture.  I believe 
  that the vedas had the same intent. 
 
 I reply to this not to comment on John (jr_esq)
 per se but on a larger phenomenon, the inability
 to see the forest for the trees.
 
 One of the failings that is *rampant* in the TMO,
 and which I believe based on my experience in the
 TMO came directly from Maharishi, is the tendency
 to focus on the ideal (or even the idea) of some-
 thing to the point where one is incapable of seeing
 what the reality of that thing is.
 
 John's idea of meritocracy isn't true *even in 
 the TMO*. If it were, poor people could become 
 Rajas, and even more telling, a few women might
 be present running the TM movement as well. 




That would certainly be true if the Rajah -- who inevitably is rich -- got his 
money via inherited wealth.  But if the Rajah has bought his position vis his 
own work and creativity in business then that itself is a form of meritocracy.

And with inherited wealth the argument could be made that the inheritor/rajah 
has good genes from stock that made the money (e.g. Rockefellers).





 
 For other examples of clinging desperately to the
 idea or ideal of something rather than looking at
 reality, we need look no further than Global Good
 News, which persists in reading the evening news
 and claiming that we're knee-deep in Sat Yuga instead
 of knee-deep in shit. Maharishi proposed the *idea*,
 and if he threw it out, it must be true, right?
 
 Wrong. Every religion or spiritual tradition in his-
 tory has had some good ideas. But actual history does
 not judge them by their ideas but by *what they 
 actually accomplished*. By that standard, the legacy
 of the Vedas is modern-day India. By the same standard,
 the legacy of the TM movement may just be Vedaland.
 
 It's *pleasant* to focus on the ideal and ignore
 the reality. It can allow a True Believer to keep
 believing, and think that he hasn't wasted his life.
 But if the TB is honest, at some point in his life
 he's really got to step back and assess whether the
 path he dedicated his life to ever *lived up to* its
 ideals. For many, that moment is likely to be on 
 their deathbed. Some of us chose to make that 
 assessment earlier.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote:



[snip]



 The Europeans still have some kind of class system, based on family names...
 
 Here in America, class is strictly based on the 'Almighty Dollar'
 
 'In Krishna We Trust'...
 
 R.G.




...and what makes America different from many other countries is that ANYONE 
can, through know-how, guts, meritocracy, innovation, entrepreneurship move up 
in class based upon that almighty dollar.

So that is a GOOD thing...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
snip
So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of
forming a society or a community.  Anyone who doesn't
fit in the system becomes a chandala, or the
untouchables.
   
   Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during 
   one's lifetime?  Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya 
   become a Brahman?  Or can a Brahman who messes his life up end 
   up a sudra by the end of his life?
  
  In an ideal varna system...
 
 Which has never existed.
 
  ...the status in society is earned not inherited by families.  
  Those who have the aptitude for intellectual pursuits and 
  education should be considered as brahmanas. It should not 
  matter whether he or she was born under the other groups in 
  society.

snip
 John is defending barbarism and institutionalized
 bigotry as if it were holy. Says a lot about his
 concept of religion.

What has happened here is that Barry jumped the gun in
his first comment on John's original post. He assumed
the system John was referring to was one in which
nothing you can do can ever change your caste status.

Then he read John's next post and discovered that 
John was describing an ideal caste system that would
be, in effect, a meritocracy.

A *sane* person would say, Oh, sorry, I didn't
realize you were talking about an ideal version.

But Barry cannnot ever admit being wrong. So instead,
he insists that because John's version doesn't match
the system in effect in India today, therefore John
is *defending* that current system.

Doesn't make any sense, of course, but hey, Barry has
to try to wiggle out of his initial mistake somehow.
As long as he can convince *himself* he was right to
start with, it doesn't matter if the way he does it
isn't logical.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[Bhairitu]

ShempMcGurk wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote:
   
 In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all the four groups 
 in society.  However, they don't rule the people, nor do the hard work.  The 
 brahmans are responsible for the priestly or advisory duties in society.  
 The kshatreyas are in charge of the executive and enforcement work.  For 
 busines and mercantile work, the vaishas perform them.  The rest of the hard 
 work is given to the sudras.

 So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming a society or a 
 community.  Anyone who doesn't fit in the system becomes a chandala, or the 
 untouchables.
 



 Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during one's 
 lifetime?  Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya become a Brahman?  Or 
 can a Brahman who messes his life up end up a sudra by the end of his life?

 Or does this just happen between lifetimes, ie. if you start off at the lower 
 rung -- sudras -- if you do a good job at each level you will get to be 
 braman in four lifetimes?

 And can you be enlightened as a, say, sudra?  Or do you have to wait until 
 you are a Brahman before the opportunity for enlightenment is available to 
 you?

I think mobility was part of the picture but got erased at some point.  
The system seems to indicate what kind of things people might be good at 
than anything else.  People are happy doing things they are good at and 
miserable doing things they are lousy at.   On some of the astrology 
seminars I attended Indian instructors mentioned that western people 
studying astrology were Brahmans.  It was also inferred that went  for 
anyone involved in intellectual endeavors.

One of the things I learned about Sikhs is it is a very democratic 
religion.  According to their beliefs a king and beggar can be seated 
next to each other at the same table.  This was probably a revolt 
against the caste system.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[Bhairitu]

ShempMcGurk wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote:



 [snip]



   
 The Europeans still have some kind of class system, based on family names...

 Here in America, class is strictly based on the 'Almighty Dollar'

 'In Krishna We Trust'...

 R.G.

 



 ...and what makes America different from many other countries is that ANYONE 
 can, through know-how, guts, meritocracy, innovation, entrepreneurship move 
 up in class based upon that almighty dollar.

 So that is a GOOD thing...

The dollar is almighty?  Boy, do we know what you worship. :-D

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
snip
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
snip
  I used the word ideal to differentiate the varna system 
  in actual practice in India.  As practiced today, the varna 
  system is a devolution of the intent of the vedas.

Barry's response to the above is a followup to a post in
which he accused John of defending barbarism and
institutionalized bigotry as if it were holy on the
basis of John's remarks about an ideal Varna system.

Again, in other words, he made a big fat mistake.

So now he's going to try to cover *that* one up with
a whole new tack:

snip
 One of the failings that is *rampant* in the TMO,
 and which I believe based on my experience in the
 TMO came directly from Maharishi, is the tendency
 to focus on the ideal (or even the idea) of some-
 thing to the point where one is incapable of seeing
 what the reality of that thing is.

Let's recall that only a few days ago, Barry was
touting What one puts one's attention on, grows,
because that served the purpose of the putdown of
TMers he was making at that point. That day, it was
the failing of TMers that they put their attention
on the negative rather than the positive.

Today, the failing of TMers is that they put their
attention on the positive rather than the negative.

What will it be tomorrow, I wonder?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote:

 ShempMcGurk wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote:
 
 
 
  [snip]
 
 
 

  The Europeans still have some kind of class system, based on family 
  names...
 
  Here in America, class is strictly based on the 'Almighty Dollar'
 
  'In Krishna We Trust'...
 
  R.G.
 
  
 
 
 
  ...and what makes America different from many other countries is that 
  ANYONE can, through know-how, guts, meritocracy, innovation, 
  entrepreneurship move up in class based upon that almighty dollar.
 
  So that is a GOOD thing...
 
 The dollar is almighty?  Boy, do we know what you worship. :-D


Oh, and you prefer the caste system where people get their place and privilege 
in society based not upon merit but upon inherited position?  Inherited caste?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote:
 
 
 
 [snip]
 
 
 
  The Europeans still have some kind of class system, based on family names...

Oh, really ?

  
  Here in America, class is strictly based on the 'Almighty Dollar'
  
  'In Krishna We Trust'...
  
  R.G.
 
 
 
 
 ...and what makes America different from many other countries is that ANYONE 
 can, through know-how, guts, meritocracy, innovation, entrepreneurship move 
 up in class based upon that almighty dollar.

Almighty dollar ? Jeez, the richest countries on earth are about to abondon the 
dollar in international oil-trade. 

As usual shemp goes back to basics and presents the core of the Great American 
Lie. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all the four groups 
  in society.  However, they don't rule the people, nor do the hard work.  
  The brahmans are responsible for the priestly or advisory duties in 
  society.  The kshatreyas are in charge of the executive and enforcement 
  work.  For busines and mercantile work, the vaishas perform them.  The rest 
  of the hard work is given to the sudras.
  
  So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming a society or a 
  community.  Anyone who doesn't fit in the system becomes a chandala, or the 
  untouchables.
 
 
 
 Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during one's 
 lifetime?  Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya become a Brahman?  Or 
 can a Brahman who messes his life up end up a sudra by the end of his life?

Or like the Indian President you can become a President, even as an untouchable.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[Bhairitu]

ShempMcGurk wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote:
   
 ShempMcGurk wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote:



 [snip]



   
   
 The Europeans still have some kind of class system, based on family 
 names...

 Here in America, class is strictly based on the 'Almighty Dollar'

 'In Krishna We Trust'...

 R.G.

 
 

 ...and what makes America different from many other countries is that 
 ANYONE can, through know-how, guts, meritocracy, innovation, 
 entrepreneurship move up in class based upon that almighty dollar.

 So that is a GOOD thing...
   
 The dollar is almighty?  Boy, do we know what you worship. :-D

 

 Oh, and you prefer the caste system where people get their place and 
 privilege in society based not upon merit but upon inherited position?  
 Inherited caste?

You are changing the subject.  You obviously prefer a system where those 
who are greedy rule.  And for the record I only mentioned that the caste 
system was probably meant to be a tool to understand why people tended 
to fall into to certain occupations.  Since you worship the almighty 
dollar wouldn't you like to know what career would best help you 
accumulate those?  You might be in the wrong career.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
   
In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all 
the four groups in society.  However, they don't rule the 
people, nor do the hard work.  The brahmans are responsible 
for the priestly or advisory duties in society.  The kshatreyas 
are in charge of the executive and enforcement work.  For 
busines and mercantile work, the vaishas perform them.  The 
rest of the hard work is given to the sudras.

So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming a 
society or a community.  Anyone who doesn't fit in the system 
becomes a chandala, or the untouchables.
   
   Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during 
   one's lifetime?  Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya 
   become a Brahman?  Or can a Brahman who messes his life up end 
   up a sudra by the end of his life?
  
  In an ideal varna system...
 
 Which has never existed.
 
  ...the status in society is earned not inherited by families.  
  Those who have the aptitude for intellectual pursuits and 
  education should be considered as brahmanas. It should not 
  matter whether he or she was born under the other groups in 
  society.
 
 But it does. In India everyone knows your caste
 the moment they hear your last name. You are 
 consigned to the position allotted to that 
 caste *no matter what*. It controls your entire
 life -- how you are treated in restaurants and
 hotels, who you can marry, where you can work,
 everything. John's claim above is a fantasy, an
 ideal that has never once existed in the entire
 history of the caste system. 
 
 If John had been born a sudra, he could get 20 
 Ph.D.s and never be allowed to work in an intel-
 lectual capacity in India or even in an Indian-
 owned company in America. I've seen it happen in 
 programming. I worked on a large programming
 project for Pepsico, one that was staffed largely
 by an Indian company. The first step of the resume
 review process was to put all resumes with last
 names that were not Brahmins straight in the 
 trash bin. I sat in a room and listened to a few
 of these more evolved Brahmins brag about how
 they had beat the shit out of an Indian guy of
 another caste who had dared to ask a Brahmin woman 
 on a date. This was in New York, not Delhi.
 
 John is defending barbarism and institutionalized
 bigotry as if it were holy. Says a lot about his
 concept of religion.


How many times do I have to write what my position is?  It appears that you 
failed to understand the message again.  You have twisted the point I was 
trying to convey.

Nonetheless, the Indian government is trying to correct the situation by 
appointing some people who were born in the lower castes into positions of 
authority.  I believe there are now judges in India who were born in the sudra 
caste.

It would take several generations to correct the accepted norms in India.  For 
what its worth, the change that India is undergoing appears to follow the steps 
that the civil rights movement had gone through here in the USA.

So, we can see there are some hints of evolution in human consciousness when 
the conditions are right in any given society.  However, the evolutionary 
conditions at the present time appear to be threatened by negative forces that 
tend to revert society to the dark ages, or Kali Yuga.  Specifically, I am 
addressing the latent fundamentalism of people who believe in their particular 
brand of religious views.

This is the main reason why we see the barbaric acts being committed in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  If left to fester, there could very well be more 
suicide bombers in Europe and the USA.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 snip
 So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of
 forming a society or a community.  Anyone who doesn't
 fit in the system becomes a chandala, or the
 untouchables.

Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during 
one's lifetime?  Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya 
become a Brahman?  Or can a Brahman who messes his life up end 
up a sudra by the end of his life?
   
   In an ideal varna system...
  
  Which has never existed.
  
   ...the status in society is earned not inherited by families.  
   Those who have the aptitude for intellectual pursuits and 
   education should be considered as brahmanas. It should not 
   matter whether he or she was born under the other groups in 
   society.
 
 snip
  John is defending barbarism and institutionalized
  bigotry as if it were holy. Says a lot about his
  concept of religion.
 
 What has happened here is that Barry jumped the gun in
 his first comment on John's original post. He assumed
 the system John was referring to was one in which
 nothing you can do can ever change your caste status.
 
 Then he read John's next post and discovered that 
 John was describing an ideal caste system that would
 be, in effect, a meritocracy.
 
 A *sane* person would say, Oh, sorry, I didn't
 realize you were talking about an ideal version.
 
 But Barry cannnot ever admit being wrong. So instead,
 he insists that because John's version doesn't match
 the system in effect in India today, therefore John
 is *defending* that current system.
 
 Doesn't make any sense, of course, but hey, Barry has
 to try to wiggle out of his initial mistake somehow.
 As long as he can convince *himself* he was right to
 start with, it doesn't matter if the way he does it
 isn't logical.


In other words, he is living in his own fantasy world.  Or, he could be smoking 
some home grown hallucinegens in Spain.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[John]

In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all the four groups in 
society.  However, they don't rule the people, nor do the hard work.  The 
brahmans are responsible for the priestly or advisory duties in society.  The 
kshatreyas are in charge of the executive and enforcement work.  For busines 
and mercantile work, the vaishas perform them.  The rest of the hard work is 
given to the sudras.

So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming a society or a 
community.  Anyone who doesn't fit in the system becomes a chandala, or the 
untouchables.












--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote:

 by Isaac Asimov 
 What is intelligence, anyway? When I was in the army, I received the kind of
 aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, scored
 160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two hours
 they made a big fuss over me. (It didn't mean anything. The next day I was
 still a buck private with KP - kitchen police - as my highest duty.) 
 All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the
 complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other people to
 think so too. Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am very
 good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy
 of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with
 intellectual bents similar to mine? 
 For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence
 tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always
 took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, when
 anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him
 anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as
 though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car. 
 Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence
 test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but
 an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and
 I'd be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic training
 and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working
 with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute but
 is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small
 subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an
 arbiter of such matters. 
 Consider my auto-repair man, again. He had a habit of telling me jokes
 whenever he saw me. One time he raised his head from under the automobile
 hood to say: Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for
 some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering
 motions with the other hand. The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his
 head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him
 nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy
 who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked
 for them? 
 Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my
 first two fingers. Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said,
 Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them. Then he said
 smugly, I've been trying that on all my customers today. Did you catch
 many? I asked. Quite a few, he said, but I knew for sure I'd catch you.
 Why is that? I asked. Because you're so goddamned educated, doc, I knew
 you couldn't be very smart. 
 And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote:

 In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all the four groups in 
 society.  However, they don't rule the people, nor do the hard work.  The 
 brahmans are responsible for the priestly or advisory duties in society.  The 
 kshatreyas are in charge of the executive and enforcement work.  For busines 
 and mercantile work, the vaishas perform them.  The rest of the hard work is 
 given to the sudras.
 
 So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming a society or a 
 community.  Anyone who doesn't fit in the system becomes a chandala, or the 
 untouchables.



Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during one's lifetime?  
Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya become a Brahman?  Or can a Brahman 
who messes his life up end up a sudra by the end of his life?

Or does this just happen between lifetimes, ie. if you start off at the lower 
rung -- sudras -- if you do a good job at each level you will get to be braman 
in four lifetimes?

And can you be enlightened as a, say, sudra?  Or do you have to wait until you 
are a Brahman before the opportunity for enlightenment is available to you?



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
 
  by Isaac Asimov 
  What is intelligence, anyway? When I was in the army, I received the kind of
  aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, scored
  160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two hours
  they made a big fuss over me. (It didn't mean anything. The next day I was
  still a buck private with KP - kitchen police - as my highest duty.) 
  All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the
  complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other people to
  think so too. Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am very
  good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy
  of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with
  intellectual bents similar to mine? 
  For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence
  tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always
  took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, when
  anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him
  anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as
  though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car. 
  Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence
  test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but
  an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and
  I'd be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic training
  and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working
  with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute but
  is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small
  subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an
  arbiter of such matters. 
  Consider my auto-repair man, again. He had a habit of telling me jokes
  whenever he saw me. One time he raised his head from under the automobile
  hood to say: Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for
  some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering
  motions with the other hand. The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his
  head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him
  nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy
  who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked
  for them? 
  Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my
  first two fingers. Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said,
  Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them. Then he said
  smugly, I've been trying that on all my customers today. Did you catch
  many? I asked. Quite a few, he said, but I knew for sure I'd catch you.
  Why is that? I asked. Because you're so goddamned educated, doc, I knew
  you couldn't be very smart. 
  And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all the four groups 
  in society.  However, they don't rule the people, nor do the hard work.  
  The brahmans are responsible for the priestly or advisory duties in 
  society.  The kshatreyas are in charge of the executive and enforcement 
  work.  For busines and mercantile work, the vaishas perform them.  The rest 
  of the hard work is given to the sudras.
  
  So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming a society or a 
  community.  Anyone who doesn't fit in the system becomes a chandala, or the 
  untouchables.
 
 
 
 Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during one's 
 lifetime?  Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya become a Brahman?  Or 
 can a Brahman who messes his life up end up a sudra by the end of his life?

In an ideal varna system, the status in society is earned not inherited by 
families.  Those who have the aptitude for intellectual pursuits and education 
should be considered as brahmanas.  It should not matter whether he or she was 
born under the other groups in society.

Conversely, those who were born into a brahmana family but do not have the 
aptitude for intellectual work should not be considered as a brahmana in 
society.





 
 Or does this just happen between lifetimes, ie. if you start off at the lower 
 rung -- sudras -- if you do a good job at each level you will get to be 
 braman in four lifetimes?



Ideally, if a person is qualified for intellectual work, then he or she should 
be considered a brahmana.


 
 And can you be enlightened as a, say, sudra?  Or do you have to wait until 
 you are a Brahman before the opportunity for enlightenment is available to 
 you?

A sudra can be enlightened just like anybody else.  Enlightenment is 
independent of your status in life.  As MMY states, enlightenment is attainable 
by anybody.  It's a matter of achieving the highest level of consciousness, 
Unity Consciousness.






 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
  
   by Isaac Asimov 
   What is intelligence, anyway? When I was in the army, I received the kind 
   of
   aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, scored
   160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two 
   hours
   they made a big fuss over me. (It didn't mean anything. The next day I was
   still a buck private with KP - kitchen police - as my highest duty.) 
   All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the
   complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other people 
   to
   think so too. Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am 
   very
   good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered 
   worthy
   of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with
   intellectual bents similar to mine? 
   For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence
   tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I 
   always
   took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, when
   anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him
   anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as
   though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car. 
   Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an 
   intelligence
   test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone 
   but
   an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and
   I'd be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic training
   and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working
   with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute 
   but
   is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small
   subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an
   arbiter of such matters. 
   Consider my auto-repair man, again. He had a habit of telling me jokes
   whenever he saw me. One time he raised his head from under the automobile
   hood to say: Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask 
   for
   some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering
   motions with the other hand. The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his
   head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought 
   him
   nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next 
   guy
   who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he 
   asked
   for them? 
   Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my
   first two fingers. Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[ShempMcGurk]

You used the word ideally below several times in answering questions.

I'm wondering whether ideally reflects your own feeling on what is ideal 
(perhaps with a touch of the western idea of meritocracy thrown in that is 
influencing the use of that word) or whether that is, in fact, what the vedas 
say.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
  
   In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all the four 
   groups in society.  However, they don't rule the people, nor do the hard 
   work.  The brahmans are responsible for the priestly or advisory duties 
   in society.  The kshatreyas are in charge of the executive and 
   enforcement work.  For busines and mercantile work, the vaishas perform 
   them.  The rest of the hard work is given to the sudras.
   
   So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming a society or 
   a community.  Anyone who doesn't fit in the system becomes a chandala, or 
   the untouchables.
  
  
  
  Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during one's 
  lifetime?  Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya become a Brahman?  
  Or can a Brahman who messes his life up end up a sudra by the end of his 
  life?
 
 In an ideal varna system, the status in society is earned not inherited by 
 families.  Those who have the aptitude for intellectual pursuits and 
 education should be considered as brahmanas.  It should not matter whether he 
 or she was born under the other groups in society.
 
 Conversely, those who were born into a brahmana family but do not have the 
 aptitude for intellectual work should not be considered as a brahmana in 
 society.
 
 
 
 
 
  
  Or does this just happen between lifetimes, ie. if you start off at the 
  lower rung -- sudras -- if you do a good job at each level you will get to 
  be braman in four lifetimes?
 
 
 
 Ideally, if a person is qualified for intellectual work, then he or she 
 should be considered a brahmana.
 
 
  
  And can you be enlightened as a, say, sudra?  Or do you have to wait until 
  you are a Brahman before the opportunity for enlightenment is available to 
  you?
 
 A sudra can be enlightened just like anybody else.  Enlightenment is 
 independent of your status in life.  As MMY states, enlightenment is 
 attainable by anybody.  It's a matter of achieving the highest level of 
 consciousness, Unity Consciousness.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
   
by Isaac Asimov 
What is intelligence, anyway? When I was in the army, I received the 
kind of
aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, 
scored
160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two 
hours
they made a big fuss over me. (It didn't mean anything. The next day I 
was
still a buck private with KP - kitchen police - as my highest duty.) 
All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the
complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other 
people to
think so too. Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am 
very
good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered 
worthy
of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with
intellectual bents similar to mine? 
For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence
tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I 
always
took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, 
when
anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him
anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements 
as
though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car. 
Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an 
intelligence
test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost 
anyone but
an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, 
and
I'd be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic 
training
and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working
with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not 
absolute but
is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small
subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an
arbiter of such matters. 
Consider my auto-repair man, again. He had a habit of telling me jokes
whenever he saw me. One time he raised his head from under the 
automobile
hood to say: Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to 
ask for
some nails. He put two fingers 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 You used the word ideally below several times in answering questions.
 
 I'm wondering whether ideally reflects your own feeling on what is ideal 
 (perhaps with a touch of the western idea of meritocracy thrown in that is 
 influencing the use of that word) or whether that is, in fact, what the vedas 
 say.

I used the word ideal to differentiate the varna system in actual practice in 
India.  As practiced today, the varna system is a devolution of the intent of 
the vedas.

You are right that I am inserting my own interpretation of meritocracy as 
thought of in the western culture.  I believe that the vedas had the same 
intent. 






 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
  
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
   
In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all the four 
groups in society.  However, they don't rule the people, nor do the 
hard work.  The brahmans are responsible for the priestly or advisory 
duties in society.  The kshatreyas are in charge of the executive and 
enforcement work.  For busines and mercantile work, the vaishas perform 
them.  The rest of the hard work is given to the sudras.

So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming a society 
or a community.  Anyone who doesn't fit in the system becomes a 
chandala, or the untouchables.
   
   
   
   Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during one's 
   lifetime?  Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya become a Brahman?  
   Or can a Brahman who messes his life up end up a sudra by the end of his 
   life?
  
  In an ideal varna system, the status in society is earned not inherited by 
  families.  Those who have the aptitude for intellectual pursuits and 
  education should be considered as brahmanas.  It should not matter whether 
  he or she was born under the other groups in society.
  
  Conversely, those who were born into a brahmana family but do not have the 
  aptitude for intellectual work should not be considered as a brahmana in 
  society.
  
  
  
  
  
   
   Or does this just happen between lifetimes, ie. if you start off at the 
   lower rung -- sudras -- if you do a good job at each level you will get 
   to be braman in four lifetimes?
  
  
  
  Ideally, if a person is qualified for intellectual work, then he or she 
  should be considered a brahmana.
  
  
   
   And can you be enlightened as a, say, sudra?  Or do you have to wait 
   until you are a Brahman before the opportunity for enlightenment is 
   available to you?
  
  A sudra can be enlightened just like anybody else.  Enlightenment is 
  independent of your status in life.  As MMY states, enlightenment is 
  attainable by anybody.  It's a matter of achieving the highest level of 
  consciousness, Unity Consciousness.
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
   












--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:

 by Isaac Asimov 
 What is intelligence, anyway? When I was in the army, I received the 
 kind of
 aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, 
 scored
 160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two 
 hours
 they made a big fuss over me. (It didn't mean anything. The next day 
 I was
 still a buck private with KP - kitchen police - as my highest duty.) 
 All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the
 complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other 
 people to
 think so too. Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I 
 am very
 good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered 
 worthy
 of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with
 intellectual bents similar to mine? 
 For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these 
 intelligence
 tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I 
 always
 took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, 
 when
 anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him
 anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his 
 pronouncements as
 though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car. 
 Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an 
 intelligence
 test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost 
 anyone but
 an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a 
 moron, and
 I'd be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic 
 training
 and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote:

 In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all
 the four groups in society.  However, they don't rule the
 people, nor do the hard work.  The brahmans are responsible
 for the priestly or advisory duties in society. The kshatreyas
 are in charge of the executive and enforcement work. For
 busines and mercantile work, the vaishas perform them. The
 rest of the hard work is given to the sudras.

 So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming
 a society or a community. Anyone who doesn't fit in the
 system becomes a chandala, or the untouchables.

You understand that the last sentence above
includes you, right? And that nothing you can
possibly do can ever change that, right?

Systematized elitism and bigotry. It never ceases
to astound me that people here defend it because
it's in a book they consider The Word Of God.

People *really* need to see The Invention Of
Lying. It's an interesting take on religion, by an
atheist, but one with more heart and compassion
in his little toe than many religious people seem
to have in their entire bodies. The bit where he
presents his ten eternal truths to the people
mounted on two pizza boxes like the Ten
Commandments is not only hilarious, it's one
of the best commentaries on religion ever.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Intelligence

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
  
   In the vedic varnas, the brahmanas are the smartest of all 
   the four groups in society.  However, they don't rule the 
   people, nor do the hard work.  The brahmans are responsible 
   for the priestly or advisory duties in society.  The kshatreyas 
   are in charge of the executive and enforcement work.  For 
   busines and mercantile work, the vaishas perform them.  The 
   rest of the hard work is given to the sudras.
   
   So in this system, everyone benefits for the sake of forming a 
   society or a community.  Anyone who doesn't fit in the system 
   becomes a chandala, or the untouchables.
  
  Is there upward or downward mobility between the groups during 
  one's lifetime?  Can a sudra become a Brahman or a kshatreya 
  become a Brahman?  Or can a Brahman who messes his life up end 
  up a sudra by the end of his life?
 
 In an ideal varna system...

Which has never existed.

 ...the status in society is earned not inherited by families.  
 Those who have the aptitude for intellectual pursuits and 
 education should be considered as brahmanas. It should not 
 matter whether he or she was born under the other groups in 
 society.

But it does. In India everyone knows your caste
the moment they hear your last name. You are 
consigned to the position allotted to that 
caste *no matter what*. It controls your entire
life -- how you are treated in restaurants and
hotels, who you can marry, where you can work,
everything. John's claim above is a fantasy, an
ideal that has never once existed in the entire
history of the caste system. 

If John had been born a sudra, he could get 20 
Ph.D.s and never be allowed to work in an intel-
lectual capacity in India or even in an Indian-
owned company in America. I've seen it happen in 
programming. I worked on a large programming
project for Pepsico, one that was staffed largely
by an Indian company. The first step of the resume
review process was to put all resumes with last
names that were not Brahmins straight in the 
trash bin. I sat in a room and listened to a few
of these more evolved Brahmins brag about how
they had beat the shit out of an Indian guy of
another caste who had dared to ask a Brahmin woman 
on a date. This was in New York, not Delhi.

John is defending barbarism and institutionalized
bigotry as if it were holy. Says a lot about his
concept of religion.