X-Ftn-To: Dharmadeva 

"Dharmadeva"  wrote:
>"Danijel Turina"  wrote in message
>> Distinctions are not a problem; limitations are. It's OK to classify
>> people into castes,
>
>Once there is classification of this type it will inevitably be used as a
>social tool of exploitation.  

Of course it can. That's why every employer will ask for a candidate's
qualifications. You can't be employed as a lawyer if you haven't
studied law. That's the way things work. But, what I'm saying is, if
nobody prevents you from studying law, then what's the problem? You
don't have to become a lawyer, but you can. If you want to become one,
you have to prove you're capable. The same applies for medicine,
architecture, programming, military skills etc. 

>Who is doing the classifying and why.  This
>same argument was used to support slavery!!

Yes, and the argument of equality was used in communism. So what?

> as long as those classifications are flexible, and
>> one is allowed to choose by his own preference.
>
>Then why impose social classifications at all

Who said anything about imposing? I said that the social
classifications exist, and that it's OK, because people are different,
and different people have different interests and preferences. 

>> >But for persons to teach yoga and say they are of brahmin caste is
>creating
>>
>> But, he _should_ be, of course.
>
>No he/she should not be.  

Aha, so you want to say that one should not be spiritually inclined in
order to teach yoga? Or you just don't know the definition of
"brahmana"?

>A yogi is one who renders service to the world.
>Not one who imposes superiority complexes to justify their own position

I think that you just repeat something somebody told you, without
understanding, like a parrot.

>>Honestly, would you accept a merchant
>> as your guru, or would you prefer someone more spiritually inclined?
>
>I would obviously accept a proper guru as guru.  
>You equate guru with
>brahmin there is not such link to be made.

OK, so you want to say that you would want somebody with brahmanic
qualification, but without brahmanic label. 
What's the problem with the label?

>> did see you criticise a combination of merchant's mentality and
>> spiritual activity, you know.
>
>Exploitation by vaeshyans (capitalists) is of course wrong as is any
>exploitation - including that of priests.

Who said anything about exploitation? I said that the guru position is
possible only when one meets the criteria inherent to the definition
of brahmana - in other words, that his only goal in life are the
highest spiritual values. You are constantly mixing issues.

>So you _are_ saying that one _must_ be a
>> qualified brahmana in order to teach spirituality. The rest is just a
>> matter of form.
>
>One must be a qualified spiritualists.  being a brahmin has nothing to do
>with it.

:)))))))))) I might be repeating myself, but you obviously don't know
what the word means. Let me explain, then. "Brahmana" is the one whose
consciousness has the quality of brahman, the supreme truth and
reality. His consciousness is always focused on brahman, emerged in
brahman, and therefore he is called brahmana. Only brahmana can confer
spiritual realization upon others, and therefore every true guru must
be brahmana. Things clearer now?

>So let us break these bondages of caste, first of all.

:))))
You sound like you're repeating some script. 
Are you, by some strange chance, the same guy from Australia who was
into Anandamurti (I hope I remembered it right) and his
"neo-humanism", or whatever, who was writing so many boring monologues
to the Kundalini-list that he was expelled by Angelique? The only
person, ever, to suffer such ignoble faith? Who then attempted to
mail-bomb the list in revenge, and had the account locked, if my
memory serves me well?
It was a long time ago, but you sound exactly the same. I remember
that he was constantly trying to preach without ever stopping to
listen, constantly trying to prove something. You _can't_ be that same
guy, that was years ago. Nobody would sing the _same_ tune for so
long. It would be utterly boring. ;>

But then again, preaching has a way of preventing people to look into
themselves and face the things that are there, and that can be a very
powerful motive for keeping up the deaf monologue...

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org