Brahmins ingnored, humiliated, neglected = End of that government.

Since ancient time, those governments/rulers who did not include brahmins in their courts as minister/guru/advicers or did not accept advice or disregarded or humiliated brahmins were turned out be cruels, dictators, mass killers, inhumen, selfish, orthodox. Brahmins are the nerve of Indian society by which a healthy society runs if they are in bad shape, no government can expect long governance or a healthy state or country.

Views: 161

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Can u come out wid some past inferences please...?
you can refer to history, atrocities on brahmins by kshatriya result of birth 'parsuram' end of many small kings belong to kshatrya, end of nanda dynastry by chanakya there are many reference in ancient history, end of auragzeb empire due to not listening or inclusion of brahmins in the court, since congress neglected brahmins, see the situation after indira gandhi, lalu ji government, jayalalitha governement, and there are numorous instances after 1948 till now. but who have respected and kept friendly relation with brahmins their rule was durable and famous even there were famous muslim rulers in india. rest of inference/reference you can check histry and find out.

Sonal pandey said:
Can u come out wid some past inferences please...?
Wat do u hv to say about chand ashok?? He was a powerful ruler of his time and still remembers for the works he did during his regime.

Rajesh K.Pathak said:
you can refer to history, atrocities on brahmins by kshatriya result of birth 'parsuram' end of many small kings belong to kshatrya, end of nanda dynastry by chanakya there are many reference in ancient history, end of auragzeb empire due to not listening or inclusion of brahmins in the court, since congress neglected brahmins, see the situation after indira gandhi, lalu ji government, jayalalitha governement, and there are numorous instances after 1948 till now. but who have respected and kept friendly relation with brahmins their rule was durable and famous even there were famous muslim rulers in india. rest of inference/reference you can check histry and find out.

Sonal pandey said:
Can u come out wid some past inferences please...?
If you are refering to 'the great ashoka' he never humiliated, disrespected and geglected brahmins although in his court there were hiundreds of brahmins as advicers and well wishers.please check histroy. He is considered the most powerful emperor of india. Thanks for comment, i like your interest in indian histroy.

Sonal pandey said:
Wat do u hv to say about chand ashok?? He was a powerful ruler of his time and still remembers for the works he did during his regime.

Rajesh K.Pathak said:
you can refer to history, atrocities on brahmins by kshatriya result of birth 'parsuram' end of many small kings belong to kshatrya, end of nanda dynastry by chanakya there are many reference in ancient history, end of auragzeb empire due to not listening or inclusion of brahmins in the court, since congress neglected brahmins, see the situation after indira gandhi, lalu ji government, jayalalitha governement, and there are numorous instances after 1948 till now. but who have respected and kept friendly relation with brahmins their rule was durable and famous even there were famous muslim rulers in india. rest of inference/reference you can check histry and find out.

Sonal pandey said:
Can u come out wid some past inferences please...?
ok Agreed but this is like contradicting ur own saying that those who took advice of brahmins or respected brahmins were gr8 rulers. And those who dint were cruel etc... Wat was chand ashok, a kind ruler??? He butchered his brothers for kingdom and killed many innocents in wars thru his un-human tactics.And moreover he is considered to be one of the most merciless and cruel ruler of all time.

Rajesh K.Pathak said:
If you are refering to 'the great ashoka' he never humiliated, disrespected and geglected brahmins although in his court there were hiundreds of brahmins as advicers and well wishers.please check histroy. He is considered the most powerful emperor of india. Thanks for comment, i like your interest in indian histroy.

Sonal pandey said:
Wat do u hv to say about chand ashok?? He was a powerful ruler of his time and still remembers for the works he did during his regime.

Rajesh K.Pathak said:
you can refer to history, atrocities on brahmins by kshatriya result of birth 'parsuram' end of many small kings belong to kshatrya, end of nanda dynastry by chanakya there are many reference in ancient history, end of auragzeb empire due to not listening or inclusion of brahmins in the court, since congress neglected brahmins, see the situation after indira gandhi, lalu ji government, jayalalitha governement, and there are numorous instances after 1948 till now. but who have respected and kept friendly relation with brahmins their rule was durable and famous even there were famous muslim rulers in india. rest of inference/reference you can check histry and find out.

Sonal pandey said:
Can u come out wid some past inferences please...?
hahahahhah, you have seen 'Shahrukh' that is why you are telling me, you should see the reason before killing brothers and attacking 'Kaliga' it is duty of king or ruler to strengthen own country by securing it border, winning over enemies, looking after welfare of own subject, emire expands when you annex other territory what Ashoka did. he became the great ashoka when had court to advise on the poltitcs or work related to administration those days only brahmins were the right people on these matters or behind success of any king or emperor by providing right and accurate advise. He was more respected when he went to promote religion and who encouraged him to do so only brahmins so that he could get mental peace and wash off all his sins what he could thought tobe.
sorry but its not due to shahrukh...hvnt watched that movie yet. Anyway the same theory applies to other rulers to for being cruel. Moreover it was not just kalinga,Ashoka was known for his unquenched thirst for wars.And m sorry but ur saying that brahmins encouraged him to promote Buddhism can not be verified it seems to be ur personal opinion.

Rajesh K.Pathak said:
hahahahhah, you have seen 'Shahrukh' that is why you are telling me, you should see the reason before killing brothers and attacking 'Kaliga' it is duty of king or ruler to strengthen own country by securing it border, winning over enemies, looking after welfare of own subject, emire expands when you annex other territory what Ashoka did. he became the great ashoka when had court to advise on the poltitcs or work related to administration those days only brahmins were the right people on these matters or behind success of any king or emperor by providing right and accurate advise. He was more respected when he went to promote religion and who encouraged him to do so only brahmins so that he could get mental peace and wash off all his sins what he could thought tobe.
A reply is a must.
What is a child without education and never ever communicated with?
To run any government or to expand empire, king need good people or good people in adminstration encourage king to do so as todays's business expands due to people associated with businessman. Even in certain cases or all the cases employed people or associated people do or perform work related to expansion of business empire on the name of owner/MD/CEO etc. the same way kingdom expands. there was only one class of people were assisting king in their advice, counselling, suggesting in their day-today adminstration. Anywork or adminstration, expansion, goal to achieve is not single men work but a collective effort in right direction.

Sonal pandey said:
sorry but its not due to shahrukh...hvnt watched that movie yet. Anyway the same theory applies to other rulers to for being cruel. Moreover it was not just kalinga,Ashoka was known for his unquenched thirst for wars.And m sorry but ur saying that brahmins encouraged him to promote Buddhism can not be verified it seems to be ur personal opinion.

Rajesh K.Pathak said:
hahahahhah, you have seen 'Shahrukh' that is why you are telling me, you should see the reason before killing brothers and attacking 'Kaliga' it is duty of king or ruler to strengthen own country by securing it border, winning over enemies, looking after welfare of own subject, emire expands when you annex other territory what Ashoka did. he became the great ashoka when had court to advise on the poltitcs or work related to administration those days only brahmins were the right people on these matters or behind success of any king or emperor by providing right and accurate advise. He was more respected when he went to promote religion and who encouraged him to do so only brahmins so that he could get mental peace and wash off all his sins what he could thought tobe.
Although this discussion is not of my interest i m curious to know ur views on the following-

To protect the purity of their elite status, Brahmanism forbade class admixture (Varnasankara). An upper class man could marry a lower class woman, but vice versa was forbidden. Those who defied this rule were condemned to hell (BG: 1:38-44).


"In 298 B. C. E. Chandragupta abandoned Brahmanism and became a Sramana of Jainism. He retired to Sramana Belagola in what is today Karnataka State and starved himself to death. His son Bindusara abandoned Brahmanism and embraced Ajivika sect."

I found above things on net.
This question must have read absurd which I sought an answer for. No complaints for no response even in exclamation.

Let me take it forward. A baby may be born with brain having heavenly wired up neurological circuitry but would prove no good for want of social interaction, communication and education. These provide the necessary environment along with constant mentoring and upbringing to make a Brahman out of the child. Leave aside exceptions. (and brahman here means one who is so by knowledge and not the one who is born in a particular clan).

Now, people are good at googling to even fix the percentage of the population that were privy to this education and mentoring and the percentage that were forbidden all along!

And we say this community has led the society with its prudence. Yes, but at the same time the rest were craftily disabled into following.

People are by virtue either leaders or followers. But these leaders are for and in service of the people. They don’t MAKE followers.

Back home, it is general wisdom to make friends with your son the day he falls in your shoe. Why can not this wisdom be extended to reach out to the society which is churning and turning fast to get out of cocoon? It is better dying an accomodating than a dejected soul.

regards.



Abhishek said:
A reply is a must.
What is a child without education and never ever communicated with?
Dear Sonal Please go to search on net (Yahoo or Google) about the history of pakistan where hindus were depicted as invaders whereas Pakistan was created on 14th August 1947 and all Indians know that pakistanis were 100% hindus before converting to into Islam just before 1075AD.

You have gone through hinstry regarding Chandragupta & Bindusar, Indian history is written by English and later expanded by Indian historians studied in western countries says that both the kings left aryan system or brahminism and accepted other concept of life due to some corruption spread in hinduism but where those concept have vanished, Jainism and budhism are on the verge of vanishing from Indian and all people are practicing hindusims even very famous of english film star like 'Julia robert' embrased hinduism!

regarding your statement that in one of the grantha is written that brahmins can marry with lower class girl and lower class boy was not permitted to marry brahmins yes due to strict self binding rules brahmin girl can not accommodate with lower class boy but lower class girl can easily adopt good rules of life in brahmin families. But now things are changing. I will advise you if you think on those line please think twice as there are manythings involved in life after marriage, it is not only love or physical attraction but a social or family to family relation keeps human as human after marriage, people from 16 years to 25 years do not have much experiance and bound to fall for for whole life, these age groups think that they are very knowledeable and smart even better than parents not not really!

regarding

Sonal pandey said:
Although this discussion is not of my interest i m curious to know ur views on the following-

To protect the purity of their elite status, Brahmanism forbade class admixture (Varnasankara). An upper class man could marry a lower class woman, but vice versa was forbidden. Those who defied this rule were condemned to hell (BG: 1:38-44).


"In 298 B. C. E. Chandragupta abandoned Brahmanism and became a Sramana of Jainism. He retired to Sramana Belagola in what is today Karnataka State and starved himself to death. His son Bindusara abandoned Brahmanism and embraced Ajivika sect."

I found above things on net.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2014   Created by YouBihar

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service