The reason for such a ridiculous analogy is to pt out that it is not me or Hindu dharma, but western liberty which tells us that every human is free to touch, eat with, & co-habit with whoever he/she wants. & that is a Gods given right. So, the prob cant be untouchability per se.
what then is a more accurate description of the problem?
From the western pov β untouchability is ok among individuals but not ok among groups. This is because the west is dead against the idea of community.
From the western pov β untouchability is ok among individuals but not ok among groups. This is because the west is dead against the idea of community.
From our pov β though untchblty is a common trait of tribal life all over the world, it became, in our defeated, debased state over the last 300 yrs, an obstacle to brotherhood, an excuse for supremacy and a back door entry for Western memes into our society.
But, if it is supremacy of one varna over another that we are against, then we shd also stand against supremacy of one race over another, of one religion over another, of modernity over tradition. A reading of history will show that intra-Hindu supremacy was the least evil
of all supremacies. It did not lead to slavery, genocide, colonization, holocaust, baby-stealing and mass slaughter. At most it can be called obnoxious.
As far as brotherhood goes, itβs important for us to recover the memory of our communion in the Purusha.
As far as brotherhood goes, itβs important for us to recover the memory of our communion in the Purusha.
We are all pieces of a dharmic whole. Itβs the loss of this memory that has sometimes led us down the adharmic path. The solution is not erasure, it is re-vitalization.
Loading suggestions...