UPA's Pink Revolution Makes India World's Biggest Beef Exporter

[Manvantaratruti]

1.
Another disinformed rant.The feudal economy was the product of 2 things - the decline of trade and commerce that had served as the source of power of the vaishya class during the early protest movements of buddhism and jainism among whose main backers were merchants and middle class.The main source of trade wealth came from seaborne trade with the roman empire.The bullion imported from europe was crucial in maintaining a money economy.With the end of this trade merchant centres declined and vaishya class ceased to be powerful.
Second cause of the closed economy was the growing trend of rent-free land-grants to brahmanas and khastriya vassals called agrahara starting from the late gupta gae.These increased power of feudatories.With collpase of money economy these feudal holdings became self sufficient closed centres lorded over by brahmins or kshatriyas.

LOL...... spin it any way you want, the reality is Brahmans NEVER held much land. Most were held by Kshatriya and Vaishyas.

Agraha were a settlement of Brahmin houses, not vasts acres of agricultural land ....ya maybe some Brahmins owned their own homes ......as did countless others. Is that the great divide ?

2.Not surprising since brahmins were the educated class,and they were the ones who had controlled the prerogative to act as custodians of social development and reform.Buddha wasn't,kabir wasn't.In any case few of these reformers did long lasting effect or eradicate caste system.

Nonsense, most kshatriyas were educated too as were any one else who could afford it. That included the Vaishyas. That is how they could trade

Social reform is not a "Prerogative" ..... anyone interested in social upliftment can become a social reformer. But looks like only the Brahmis were interested in it

3.As i wrote earlier from late gupta age,due to land grants and decline of trade power and land came to be monopolized under brahmins and kshtriyas.Among vaishyas the only important ones remained the guildsmen and craftsmen,but they neither had land nor political power.

And I have dismissed that wild allegation......there is not a single recorded instance of a Brahmin receiving large tracts of land for commercial gain. 100% of those land grants were to the military leaders and traders who could afford to buy them. The only other land grants were for Temples and Mutts for sages (not Brahmins). The Brahmin's were never owners of those Temples, they were the care takers.

4.Indeed and quite a few 'traditions' were revived by the 'masters'.Sutti,caste,widow remarriage restrictions,child marriage....
Curiously a few posts earlier u were saying people can learn religion on their own,because lawyers are not necessary to learn law and here u suddenly feel the need for a 'master'.

More hubris, Sati has its origins in the islamic invasions. There is nothing "brahminical" about it

Widow remarriage was a social issue, one that was implemented by society. No the Brahmins. Yes the brahmins gave it religious cover, the other gave it social cover, the kshstriyas gave it political cover.

Child marriage is again due to islamic invasion and related political instability. There is nothing "brahminical" about it either Even then every child marriage is a three step process with the kids getting engaged when they are really small, the marriage when they are teen/late pre teen and gauna when they are adults.

In fact among brahmins the marriages happen very late.... largely due to poverty. Child marriage is prevalent among the shudras & the Vaishyas.

Everybody can learn the law, but we still need Lawyers genius

5.By changing the social system,denouncing and eradicating caste system.To unify the populace and inspire them to retake their homeland.They did none of these things,as that would have diminished their own power. Advisors are u joking?Who were the peshwas?Kshatriyas or brahmins?Brahmans were so arrogant that they even refused to coronate shivaji due to his humble origins.One brahman had to be imported from north india given a huge bribe to finish the coronation.See the level of treachery against the one man who fought for his country all because of contempt for his lower social origin.

The Peshwas were originally Brahmin advisers who later became Kshtriyas.

This is the picture of Peshwa Baji Rao....there is nothing Brahminical about him

However I agree that the Brahmins of Maharashtra were foolish to refuse to recognize Shivaji as a Kshatriya and coronate him.

6.Defeat was due to military causes as well as social.Every army is a reflection of its society.Due to disgusting social system we were unable to mobilize 3/4th of our manpower.And who maintained this social system ?
Education if u had any inkling of history was controlled by brahmins. Vaishyas were merchants and craftsmen,businessmen not teachers.When one class controls the fountain of knowledge it can easily manipulate how that knowledge will be imparted.

We had mobilized plenty, however wars are not won by teeming mass of men alone. Not since the invention of gunpowder.

Education was controlled by the Brahmins because they were the only one inclined to learning. Rest of the people were more interested in fighting wars and making money. However no one ever stopped a Vaishya or a Kshtriya from opnening schools ...why din't they ?

Anything / Everything in this world can be corrupted. Anything that can be corrupted, will be corrupted.

7.The trick is this.Bulk of the people don't underestand sanskrit.They believe what brahman interprets and tells them.If do it in pali/prakrit/vernacular then all can read it and evaluate it.

No one has prevented the sanskrit speaking Vaishya, khstriya or Shudra from translating the scriptures. In fact most of the sanskrit scriptures were translated into Malayalam and it was not the Brahmins who did it.

8.I never said its ok that buddha said it.I am not against reincarnation theory.I said that buddha never used the theory as justification for caste division.He saw it as a way to explain man's fate after death.I am opposed to abusing this theory to serve one's group's interests.

Karma and reincarnation is not Buddha's theory ......they existed in Hinduism even before Buddha came into the picture.

Everything is open to interpretation.......karma is used to explain a lot of things. Caste is just one of them.

10.Plz one gets tired of babas and gurus on tv giving advice,and then their property is revealed.In crores.Why does a holy man need material riches?

Ever since the holy man lived as part of society ...why else ?

 

[Manvantaratruti]

Okay, here are some quotes from Swami Vivekananda:

In this article we are going to make a collection of Swami Vivekananda's quotes and comments on beef-eating and cow slaughter.

• 
  
  Hindus from North to South are only agreed
  on one point, viz. on not eating beef.
  —Swami Vivekananda
  
• At present there are three parties in India included under the term 'Hindu' — the orthodox, the reforming sects of the Mohammedan period, and the reforming sects of the present time. Hindus from North to South are only agreed on one point, viz. on not eating beef.[Source]
• Buddha dealt a blow at animal sacrifice from which India has never recovered; and Buddha said, 'Kill no cows', and cow-killing is an impossibility with us.[Source]
• England has the sword, the material world, as our Mohammedan conquerors had before her. Yet Akbar the Great became practically a Hindu; educated Mohammedans, the Sufis, are hardly to be distinguished from the Hindus; they do not eat beef, and in other ways conform to our usages. Their thought has become permeated by ours.[Source]
• Every man, in every age, in every country is under peculiar circumstances. If the circumstances change, ideas also must change. Beef-eating was once moral. The climate was cold, and the cereals were not much known. Meat was the chief food available. So in that age and clime, beef was in a manner indispensable. But beef-eating is held to be immoral now.[Source]
• Haven't you heard Shri Ramakrishna's story about "the sin of killing a cow"? . . . A man had laid out a beautiful garden into which a cow strayed one day and did much injury. The man in rage gave some blows to the cow which killed her. Then to avoid the terrible sin he bethought himself of a trick; knowing that Indra was the presiding deity of the hand, he tried to lay the blame on him. Indra perceiving his sophistry appeared on the scene in the guise of a Brahmin and by a number of questions drew from him the answer that each and every item in connection with that garden was the man's own handiwork; whereupon Indra exposed his cunning with the cutting remark, "Well, everything here has been done by you, and Indra alone is responsible for the killing of the cow, eh!"[Source]
• If a Christian finds a piece of beef before him and does not eat it to save his own life, or will not give it to save the life of another man, he is sure to feel that he has not done his duty. But if a Hindu dares to eat that piece of beef or to give it to another Hindu, he is equally sure to feel that he too has not done his duty; the Hindu's training and education make him feel that way.[Source]
• If we did not eat beef and mutton, there would be no butchers. Eating meat is only allowable for people who do very hard work, and who are not going to be Bhaktas; but if you are going to be Bhaktas, you should avoid meat.[Source]
• In the midst of all these differences we note one point of unity among all Hindus, and it is this, that no Hindu eats beef.[Source]
• It is improper to hold many texts on the same subject to be contradicted by one or two. But why then are the long-continued customs of Madhuparka and the like repealed by one or two such texts as, "The horse sacrifice, the cow sacrifice, Sannyasa, meat-offerings in Shrâddha", etc.? If the Vedas are eternal, then what are the meaning and justification of such specifications as "this rule of Dharma is for the age of Dvâpara," "this for the age of Kali", and so forth?[Source] (Note: Madhuparka was a Vedic ceremony, usually in honour of guest, in which a respectful offering was to be made consisting, among other dainties, of beef.)
• The Brahmins at one time ate beef and married Sudras. [A] calf was killed to please a guest. Sudras cooked for Brahmins.[Source]
• There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed; how in time it was found that as we were an agricultural race, killing the best bulls meant annihilation of the race. Therefore the practice was stopped, and a voice was raised against the killing of cows.[Source]
• You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to the old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it. That is disgusting now. However they may differ from each other in India, in that they are all one — they never eat beef. The ancient sacrifices and the ancient gods, they are all gone; modern India belongs to the spiritual part of the Vedas.[Source]

Your post is self explanatory .....

Yajnas used to happen and ritual sacrifice were once permitted eons ago. In Kali yuga a LOT of the Yajnas are NOT permitted.

...and here is the relevant bit.

It starts with ,

"At present there are three parties in India included under the term 'Hindu' — the orthodox, the reforming sects of the Mohammedan period, and the reforming sects of the present time. Hindus from North to South are only agreed on one point, viz. on not eating beef."

and the final conclusion.....ends with.

"However they may differ from each other in India, in that they are all one — they never eat beef. The ancient sacrifices and the ancient gods, they are all gone; modern India belongs to the spiritual part of the Vedas."

Then who sells the cows to slaughter houses? When the cows become unproductive, these "Sensitive" people themselves sell the cows to slaughter houses, slaughter houses don't snatch the cows from them.

Another common fate of unproductive cows are to become stray cows, eat from dustbins, live on roads, get beaten up by vegetable vendors at the local market or by the local farmer for entering his farmland, that's the kind of respect people show to cows when their utility is over, wake up mate and stop romanticizing about it.

Millions of Indian cows are smuggled over to Bangladesh every year, where they are slaughtered, packaged, and exported to foreign countries, that's a big industry out there. Indian cow owners are already selling their cows to Bangladeshi slaughter houses for ages, cows come from Bengal, Bihar, UP, even from as far as Punjab, but illegally, and sells at a lesser price for the risk of smuggling. If we stop being hypocrites about it, then our poor people can earn some more money, and our country can earn some foreign currency instead of giving the favours to Bangladesh, our cows are getting slaughtered anyway.

And I am yet to eat beef, but that doesn't change anything, all I am saying that respect the diversity of our country, a thread is running where some members want all others to learn Hindi mandatoryly, I mean why? Don't try to impose your will on others, we are a mix of different culture, ethnicity, religions, languages, our country was not built like that, and rightly so, because we are not homogenous, so the only way we can live together peacefully is by accepting each other the way we are.

Just because some Hindu's do it, does not make it right nor Dharmic.

Just because a lot of people decided to kill all the jews, it does not become right either.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

LOL...... spin it any way you want, the reality is Brahmans NEVER held much land. Most were held by Kshatriya and Vaishyas.

Agraha were a settlement of Brahmin houses, not vasts acres of agricultural land ....ya maybe some Brahmins owned their own homes ......as did countless others. Is that the great divide ?



Nonsense, most kshatriyas were educated too as were any one else who could afford it. That included the Vaishyas. That is how they could trade

Social reform is not a "Prerogative" ..... anyone interested in social upliftment can become a social reformer. But looks like only the Brahmis were interested in it



And I have dismissed that wild allegation......there is not a single recorded instance of a Brahmin receiving large tracts of land for commercial gain. 100% of those land grants were to the military leaders and traders who could afford to buy them. The only other land grants were for Temples and Mutts for sages (not Brahmins). The Brahmin's were never owners of those Temples, they were the care takers.



More hubris, Sati has its origins in the islamic invasions. There is nothing "brahminical" about it

Widow remarriage was a social issue, one that was implemented by society. No the Brahmins. Yes the brahmins gave it religious cover, the other gave it social cover, the kshstriyas gave it political cover.

Child marriage is again due to islamic invasion and related political instability. There is nothing "brahminical" about it either Even then every child marriage is a three step process with the kids getting engaged when they are really small, the marriage when they are teen/late pre teen and gauna when they are adults.

In fact among brahmins the marriages happen very late.... largely due to poverty. Child marriage is prevalent among the shudras & the Vaishyas.

Everybody can learn the law, but we still need Lawyers genius



The Peshwas were originally Brahmin advisers who later became Kshtriyas.

This is the picture of Peshwa Baji Rao....there is nothing Brahminical about him

However I agree that the Brahmins of Maharashtra were foolish to refuse to recognize Shivaji as a Kshatriya and coronate him.



We had mobilized plenty, however wars are not won by teeming mass of men alone. Not since the invention of gunpowder.

Education was controlled by the Brahmins because they were the only one inclined to learning. Rest of the people were more interested in fighting wars and making money. However no one ever stopped a Vaishya or a Kshtriya from opnening schools ...why din't they ?

Anything / Everything in this world can be corrupted. Anything that can be corrupted, will be corrupted.



No one has prevented the sanskrit speaking Vaishya, khstriya or Shudra from translating the scriptures. In fact most of the sanskrit scriptures were translated into Malayalam and it was not the Brahmins who did it.



Karma and reincarnation is not Buddha's theory ......they existed in Hinduism even before Buddha came into the picture.

Everything is open to interpretation.......karma is used to explain a lot of things. Caste is just one of them.



Ever since the holy man lived as part of society ...why else ?

1.Plz read some history agrahara land grants became foundation of fuedal system,originally doled out as rent free grants to temples and monasteries they were then granted to individual brahmins and finally political feudatories too in lieu of cash which was scarce in absence of money economy.The process was started by late guptas and accelerated by palas,rastrakutas and pratiharas.Kshatriyas and brahmins monopolized land holdings.This happened not only here but in europe and worldwide as well,it is a common feature of feudalism that top 2 classes monopolize the power.

2.Noob,trading requires business sense not social and spiritual education or knowledge of philosophy.U are complete drone.Brahmins held monopoly over education more or less and that is the cause of most reformers being brahmins.But not all were-mahavira,buddha were kshatriyas,makkhali goshala was commoner,kabir was commoner,nanak was son of a accountant-the so called vaishya class.
Rubbish,who do u think ran those temples?Who were the sages given 'mahadana' as it came to be known.Most Land was monopolized between 2 classes-just as in europe there were church lands,feudal estates for landlords and then royal lands-same scenario here.The co-operation between royalty and clergy is common feature of feudalism,clergy gives them legitimacy the royalty protection and patronage.

3.More rubbish,madri-queen of pandu committed sati in the mahabharata.Was that islamic influenced.Sati stems from a very ancient indo-european practice.It was prevelant among some upper class scythian women as well.This tendency to blame others for everything is our neighbour's favourite pasttime.Own up our disastrous historical failures which led to much national humiliation in our past.As for widow remarriage don't try to avoid the issue,ur brahmanical holy text manusamhita has some gems on the rights of women.

4.This part is true ,child marriage parctice did expand during islamic inavsion era.

5.Originally,that means they usurped power gradually.But it dashes ur claim that brahmans never interfered in politics.

6.Nope there was never a nation in arms or people's struggle.We only see kings fighting,popular struggle like the maratha movement,the rise of the sikhs and jats were much late.I'm happy u at least recognized the arrogance and stubborness of the clergy in shivaji's case.

7.That is true everything can be corrupted,and nothing corrupts more like power.This is true for all human beings -regardless of caste.

8.I never said it was buddha's theory,but that buddha also preached it.What i objected to was using that theory as basis for a morally bankrupt social system.Buddha never used the reincarnation theory as justification for social division.

Overall i'm happy that we defeated this evil and will soon completely eradicate it.When brhamans,sudras,kshatriyas will just become cosmetic words from history.'Indian' is what will define our identity.And we are progressing on that path quite well.

 

[Manvantaratruti]

1.Plz read some history agrahara land grants became foundation of fuedal system,originally doled out as rent free grants to temples and monasteries they were then granted to individual brahmins and finally political feudatories too in lieu of cash which was scarce in absence of money economy.The process was started by late guptas and accelerated by palas,rastrakutas and pratiharas.Kshatriyas and brahmins monopolized land holdings.This happened not only here but in europe and worldwide as well,it is a common feature of feudalism that top 2 classes monopolize the power.

And you need to improve your comprehension.

Land grants to temple does not translate to land grants to Brahmins ...... the same way land grants for mosques does not translate to land grants to mullas.

Provide a link to show Brahmins monopolized land holdings.

2.Noob,trading requires business sense not social and spiritual education or knowledge of philosophy.U are complete drone.

LOL.....what kind of strawman argument is this ?

Brahmins held monopoly over education more or less and that is the cause of most reformers being brahmins.But not all were-mahavira,buddha were kshatriyas,makkhali goshala was commoner,kabir was commoner,nanak was son of a accountant-the so called vaishya class.

Buddha and Kabir were not social reformer.

Makkhali Goshala could very well be a brahmin, but more importanly he was not a social reformer. He was a religious leader of his own brand of philosophy.

Rubbish,who do u think ran those temples?Who were the sages given 'mahadana' as it came to be known.

Anybody qualified could run the temple, the same way anybody qualified could run the country ....that is what it takes in real life to run things. You need to be qualified to run them. That is something that has not changed for more than 6000 years .....which is why Rahul G will never run anything

Most Land was monopolized between 2 classes-just as in europe there were church lands,feudal estates for landlords and then royal lands-same scenario here.The co-operation between royalty and clergy is common feature of feudalism,clergy gives them legitimacy the royalty protection and patronage.

NONSENSE. In Europe the "church" owned ARMIES, held HUGE amount of CASH. That is what gave them power. In fact it was the church who patronized the royalty

3.More rubbish,madri-queen of pandu committed sati in the mahabharata.Was that islamic influenced.Sati stems from a very ancient indo-european practice.It was prevelant among some upper class scythian women as well.This tendency to blame others for everything is our neighbour's favourite pasttime.Own up our disastrous historical failures which led to much national humiliation in our past.As for widow remarriage don't try to avoid the issue,ur brahmanical holy text manusamhita has some gems on the rights of women.

LOL.......I never said Sati is not allowed in Hinduism. Hindu scriptures does show instances of Sati, that is how the practice started in the first place. But no one went around throwing women into the fire either

Poor comprehension skills and prejudice forms a deadly combination.

5.Originally,that means they usurped power gradually.But it dashes ur claim that brahmans never interfered in politics.

I never said they did not interfere in politics. Again poor comprehension. They were always advisers to the rulers........sometimes administrators.

However everything said and done, it was the kashtriya who held the sword and land and the Vaishya who held the land and money.

6.Nope there was never a nation in arms or people's struggle.We only see kings fighting,popular struggle like the maratha movement,the rise of the sikhs and jats were much late.I'm happy u at least recognized the arrogance and stubborness of the clergy in shivaji's case.

Those kings were the head of their respective nations

8.I never said it was buddha's theory,but that buddha also preached it.What i objected to was using that theory as basis for a morally bankrupt social system.Buddha never used the reincarnation theory as justification for social division.

Again wrong, it is not the "basis" for the social system, but an explanation by a sect.

Overall i'm happy that we defeated this evil and will soon completely eradicate it.When brhamans,sudras,kshatriyas will just become cosmetic words from history.'Indian' is what will define our identity.And we are progressing on that path quite well.

LOL....then you must wait till the caste based "Reservation" is removed from the Indian constitution.

 

[Chronos]

Beef should be banned.

Goes against the principles of Free market and Capitalism.

 

[Manvantaratruti]

Goes against the principles of Free market and Capitalism.

Thankfully Free market and capitalism are not the guiding philosophies for most Indians. (and rightly so)

In fact "free market" is not a guiding philosophy for ANY nation. ....including the very capitalistic USA.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The radicals are running rampant again, the same *** clowns who'd blame Pakistan when the rights of the minorities are marginalised. While doing the same in India.

There is nothing radical in not eating beef. Nobody is threatening anyone. You can call them conservative but not radical. And in this case rights of minority/majority is not involved. This is a social issue, not a religious one. IMO food is a personal matter and will remain that way. Many will be hurt for this and it is only natural. The issue is not so simple and straight forward as you might think.

There will always be people supporting and opposing your POV. You can't label them conveniently as radicals like that. As long as they don't threaten violence.

 

[Dem!god]

While I am fighting radical Muslims from both our neighbouring countries, some rabid radical Hindus are seating right inside my own country, they don't eat beef, fine, but why everybody have to act as per their liking? How is it different from radical Muslims prohibiting idol worshiping of Hindus? Then Talibans were also right to destroy the Buddha idols.

right bro....I am nt against any thing.....one may eat what they like but my only concern is about the animals.....I don't like they being killed .....thats all....
seeing an animal cut before me make me think will one day we humans will start eating humans too......

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Beef should be banned.

Though personally I would like that, I know it would cross a line. I would not mind on the other hand if you run campaigns peacefully to educate the people of abstaining from red meat, or any PETA campaigns.

Just like xyz can't force non vegetarian food on you, you can't impose veg either. But yes, personally I do campaign for turning vegetarian. But I can't force.

 

[Skull and Bones]

There is nothing radical in not eating beef. Nobody is threatening anyone. You can call them conservative but not radical. And in this case rights of minority/majority is not involved. This is a social issue, not a religious one. IMO food is a personal matter and will remain that way. Many will be hurt for this and it is only natural. The issue is not so simple and straight forward as you might think.

There will always be people supporting and opposing your POV. You can't label them conveniently as radicals like that. As long as they don't threaten violence.

No, my comment was not regarding eating beef or other dietary plans. My comment was regarding that post of imposing hindu culture on all the population, as they termed it as the only thing keeping the nation intact.

 

[Manvantaratruti]

Though personally I would like that, I know it would cross a line. I would not mind on the other hand if you run campaigns peacefully to educate the people of abstaining from red meat, or any PETA campaigns.

Just like xyz can't force non vegetarian food on you, you can't impose veg either. But yes, personally I do campaign for turning vegetarian. But I can't force.

Why would it cross a line ? Beef is anyway banned in majority of states in India. There are only a couple of states where beef is legally allowed.

No one is imposing veg., they are free to eat all other poultry and other animals. In any case there is never ABSOLUTE Freedom anywhere.

There is nothing radical in not eating beef. Nobody is threatening anyone. You can call them conservative but not radical. And in this case rights of minority/majority is not involved. This is a social issue, not a religious one. IMO food is a personal matter and will remain that way. Many will be hurt for this and it is only natural. The issue is not so simple and straight forward as you might think.

There will always be people supporting and opposing your POV. You can't label them conveniently as radicals like that. As long as they don't threaten violence.

....sounds suspiciously like the Indian version of Godwin's law

 

[Bombaywalla]

Too much noise here. beef Sichuan anyone?

 

[Chronos]

This questions the morale of every keralite,how can we have surplus beef when we are around?

How many Kerala Hindus you know eat beef

 

[Bombaywalla]

... Or maybe something closer to home?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

And you need to improve your comprehension.

Land grants to temple does not translate to land grants to Brahmins ...... the same way land grants for mosques does not translate to land grants to mullas.

Provide a link to show Brahmins monopolized land holdings.



LOL.....what kind of strawman argument is this ?



Buddha and Kabir were not social reformer.

Makkhali Goshala could very well be a brahmin, but more importanly he was not a social reformer. He was a religious leader of his own brand of philosophy.



Anybody qualified could run the temple, the same way anybody qualified could run the country ....that is what it takes in real life to run things. You need to be qualified to run them. That is something that has not changed for more than 6000 years .....which is why Rahul G will never run anything



NONSENSE. In Europe the "church" owned ARMIES, held HUGE amount of CASH. That is what gave them power. In fact it was the church who patronized the royalty



LOL.......I never said Sati is not allowed in Hinduism. Hindu scriptures does show instances of Sati, that is how the practice started in the first place. But no one went around throwing women into the fire either

Poor comprehension skills and prejudice forms a deadly combination.



I never said they did not interfere in politics. Again poor comprehension. They were always advisers to the rulers........sometimes administrators.

However everything said and done, it was the kashtriya who held the sword and land and the Vaishya who held the land and money.



Those kings were the head of their respective nations



Again wrong, it is not the "basis" for the social system, but an explanation by a sect.



LOL....then you must wait till the caste based "Reservation" is removed from the Indian constitution.

And u need to understand that brahmins controlled the property of these religious institutions and they directly enriched themselves.

Brahmadeya, Devadana and Agrahara Land Grants | INSIGHTS
Hindu History - The Evolution of Landed Property in the Feudal Middle Ages in India

2 very rudimentary sources.For deeper understanding read romilla thapar's pioneer book ancinet india.

Of course they were social reformers.They wished to reform the society of india and rid it of the evils of caste system and many other disturbing practices.That is why buddhism and jainism are termed protest movemenst against orthodox brahmanism.Yes his own brand of philosophy that he believed was the right path for society to follow,not that i agree with the weird fatalist ajivika approach..but it is an attempt nonetheless.

Absolutely wrong...anyone qualified?Show me vaishyas and sudras running temples in those times.I don't care about rahul gandhi,so don't try to bracket me into stereotypes.

The church held huge land holdings by the bishops all over europe,collected 'tithe' tax ,Yes the papal state had its own army,but its activities were restricted to italy-it relied on the holy roman emperor and later the catholic standard bearers france (while it was still an absolute monarchy)and particularly spain to defend religious interests.

Ur laughing at mostly urself now.I never said scriptures promote it,i rebuffed ur point that sati was brought by influence of islam.And that is true as u had no answer as to how sati was present in mahabharat.No one went throwing them forcibly,but the women could be made social outcasts.Travellers record this in their accounts how women who didn't do it were often disgraced.

Again wrong,u trying to pass the blame on to others.Brahmans and kshtriyas benefited as parasites,living on toil of other 2 classes.The vaishya class was prosperous in the maurya era till the rise of feudalism..whgen money economy declined.They again began to come into prosperity from late sultanate era when re-urbanization and regrowth of money economy came into being.The era in between was almost completely dominated by the upper 2 classes and they fucked it up bad.


Yes i hope the reservations are removed one day.They are crippling our education system.