3 ms·

I'm sorry, what? > the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage

by unmole 4y ago

I'm sorry, what? > the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage, You linked to the section that specifically prescribes conduct during the Grihastha stage. That contradicts your assertion that Brahmins are supposed to skip the Grihastha stage. > A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin. The very section you linked to says He shall be either one possessing a granary full of grains. Accumulation of wealth is explicitly allowed.

gamblor956 4y ago
I can see that reading comprehension is hard for you. The full page notes: "‘Four kinds of livelihood for householders have been described by the wise—the first is the possessing of a granary-full of grains; then the possessing of a jar-full of grains; then the possessing of not enough for the morrow; and the last is the method of the pigeon (having nothing beyond the present meal); among these the following is superior to the preceding.’ If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage. If you define this to mean the stage of one's life where material wealth is accumluated, then you would be correct that Brahmins pass through this stage, but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit. Therefore, by definition, a Brahmin as historically defined cannot be wealthy, anymore than a Catholic priest can bear children and still call themselves a priest.
- unmole 4y ago
  You're kidding me, right? > Four kinds of livelihood for householders The entire section is describing the conduct of householders. You are confusing the four permissible means of livelihood for householders with the four stages of life. > If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage. Again, where the does the text imply that Brahmins skip a stage? This is something you've just made up. > but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit Again, not implied anywhere in the text and something you made up.

by unmole 4y ago

gamblor956 4y ago

I can see that reading comprehension is hard for you. The full page notes: "‘Four kinds of livelihood for householders have been described by the wise—the first is the possessing of a granary-full of grains; then the possessing of a jar-full of grains; then the possessing of not enough for the morrow; and the last is the method of the pigeon (having nothing beyond the present meal); among these the following is superior to the preceding.’ If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage. If you define this to mean the stage of one's life where material wealth is accumluated, then you would be correct that Brahmins pass through this stage, but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit. Therefore, by definition, a Brahmin as historically defined cannot be wealthy, anymore than a Catholic priest can bear children and still call themselves a priest.

unmole 4y ago
You're kidding me, right? > Four kinds of livelihood for householders The entire section is describing the conduct of householders. You are confusing the four permissible means of livelihood for householders with the four stages of life. > If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage. Again, where the does the text imply that Brahmins skip a stage? This is something you've just made up. > but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit Again, not implied anywhere in the text and something you made up.