An Ugly Feature (that had crept into) in Hinduism: Contempt for and hostility towards Doctors

Rishi wrote:I do not care about atharva veda. I do agree that most of the doctors in India are quacks.

Rishi wrote:I do agree that most of the doctors in India are quacks.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rishi wrote:I do agree that most of the doctors in India are quacks.

 You must be a communal for indirectly attacking the reservations system in India.

Rashmun wrote:

Rishi wrote:I do not care about atharva veda. I do agree that most of the doctors in India are quacks.

we are talking now of doctors in ancient and medieval india who were plying their trade using the principles of Ayurveda. It is a fact that the Indian doctors were at one time far ahead of their western counterparts. For instance, plastic surgery is described in Susruta Samhita while it was unknown in the west till around 18th century AD or so i believe.  It is shameful that these people (the Indian doctors in ancient and medieval India) were treated with disrespect, contempt, looked down upon. With this kind of attitude which intelligent man would want to become a doctor? So the hindu dharmasastras stand accused of stifling the development of medicine and medical science in India.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rishi wrote:I do agree that most of the doctors in India are quacks.

 You must be a communal for indirectly attacking the reservations system in India.

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rishi wrote:I do agree that most of the doctors in India are quacks.

 You must be a communal for indirectly attacking the reservations system in India.

Guruvu-gaaru, are most of the doctors in India beneficiaries of reservations?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:As usual Rashmun, your references Atharvaveda and Manusmriti cannot be used legitimately (as proper socio-religious texts) to show contempt and hostility towards medical profession and physicians,

(1)  "Manu, smriti and the medical paradox"  ...
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/manu_smriti.html

(2)  "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" ....
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rishi wrote:I do not care about atharva veda. I do agree that most of the doctors in India are quacks.

we are talking now of doctors in ancient and medieval india who were plying their trade using the principles of Ayurveda. It is a fact that the Indian doctors were at one time far ahead of their western counterparts. For instance, plastic surgery is described in Susruta Samhita while it was unknown in the west till around 18th century AD or so i believe.  It is shameful that these people (the Indian doctors in ancient and medieval India) were treated with disrespect, contempt, looked down upon. With this kind of attitude which intelligent man would want to become a doctor? So the hindu dharmasastras stand accused of stifling the development of medicine and medical science in India.

I will point out that when Hindu Dharmasastras propagate the view that doctors should be treated with contempt and disrespect, and impose strictures against them (for example they must not be given food in funeral rites, etc.) they are in violation of what the Rig Veda says. In the Rig Veda, doctors and the field of medicine in general, are accorded the highest respect:

http://creative.sulekha.com/rig-veda-physicians-and-medicine_409655_blog

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:As usual Rashmun, your references Atharvaveda and Manusmriti cannot be used legitimately (as proper socio-religious texts) to show contempt and hostility towards medical profession and physicians,

(1)  "Manu, smriti and the medical paradox"  ...
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/manu_smriti.html

(2)  "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" ....
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html

besides Manu Smriti i also gave references from the dharmasastras of Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha. And also the Mahabharata. As usual you are doing your usual cherry picking;  and picking and choosing things you like about hinduism and claiming things you do not like to not be part of hinduism.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:As usual Rashmun, your references Atharvaveda and Manusmriti cannot be used legitimately (as proper socio-religious texts) to show contempt and hostility towards medical profession and physicians,

(1)  "Manu, smriti and the medical paradox"  ...
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/manu_smriti.html

(2)  "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" ....
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html

besides Manu Smriti i also gave references from the dharmasastras of Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha. And also the Mahabharata. As usual you are doing your usual cherry picking;  and picking and choosing things you like about hinduism and claiming things you do not like to not be part of hinduism.

You can enter any shit-hole and come back with a lot of goo, thinking and calling it a dharmasastra of / by Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha et al., but that won't be acceptable as long as there is no validation from the Rig Veda (Shruti).

As for the respect and acceptability of the medical profession and physicians according to the Rig Veda and in society, the above references (1) and (2) contain ample evidence.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:As usual Rashmun, your references Atharvaveda and Manusmriti cannot be used legitimately (as proper socio-religious texts) to show contempt and hostility towards medical profession and physicians,

(1)  "Manu, smriti and the medical paradox"  ...
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/manu_smriti.html

(2)  "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" ....
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html

besides Manu Smriti i also gave references from the dharmasastras of Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha. And also the Mahabharata. As usual you are doing your usual cherry picking;  and picking and choosing things you like about hinduism and claiming things you do not like to not be part of hinduism.

You can enter any shit-hole and come back with a lot of goo, thinking and calling it a dharmasastra of / by Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha et al., but that won't be acceptable as long as there is no validation from the Rig Veda (Shruti).

As for the respect and acceptability of the medical profession and physicians according to the Rig Veda and in society, the above references (1) and (2) contain ample evidence.

The dharmasastras can legitimately claim scriptural support from sruti because the Yajur Veda accepts the position they take on showing contempt and disrespect for doctors. Are you now going to say that Yajur Veda is also not a part of Hindu scripture?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:As usual Rashmun, your references Atharvaveda and Manusmriti cannot be used legitimately (as proper socio-religious texts) to show contempt and hostility towards medical profession and physicians,

(1)  "Manu, smriti and the medical paradox"  ...
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/manu_smriti.html

(2)  "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" ....
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html

besides Manu Smriti i also gave references from the dharmasastras of Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha. And also the Mahabharata. As usual you are doing your usual cherry picking;  and picking and choosing things you like about hinduism and claiming things you do not like to not be part of hinduism.

You can enter any shit-hole and come back with a lot of goo, thinking and calling it a dharmasastra of / by Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha et al., but that won't be acceptable as long as there is no validation from the Rig Veda (Shruti).

As for the respect and acceptability of the medical profession and physicians according to the Rig Veda and in society, the above references (1) and (2) contain ample evidence.

The dharmasastras can legitimately claim scriptural support from sruti because the Yajur Veda accepts the position they take on showing contempt and disrespect for doctors. Are you now going to say that Yajur Veda is also not a part of Hindu scripture?

Everything ultimately has to be in agreement with the Rig Veda.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

besides Manu Smriti i also gave references from the dharmasastras of Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha. And also the Mahabharata. As usual you are doing your usual cherry picking;  and picking and choosing things you like about hinduism and claiming things you do not like to not be part of hinduism.

You can enter any shit-hole and come back with a lot of goo, thinking and calling it a dharmasastra of / by Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha et al., but that won't be acceptable as long as there is no validation from the Rig Veda (Shruti).

As for the respect and acceptability of the medical profession and physicians according to the Rig Veda and in society, the above references (1) and (2) contain ample evidence.

The dharmasastras can legitimately claim scriptural support from sruti because the Yajur Veda accepts the position they take on showing contempt and disrespect for doctors. Are you now going to say that Yajur Veda is also not a part of Hindu scripture?

Everything ultimately has to be in agreement with the Rig Veda.

That is your own interpretation of Hinduism.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

besides Manu Smriti i also gave references from the dharmasastras of Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha. And also the Mahabharata. As usual you are doing your usual cherry picking;  and picking and choosing things you like about hinduism and claiming things you do not like to not be part of hinduism.

You can enter any shit-hole and come back with a lot of goo, thinking and calling it a dharmasastra of / by Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha et al., but that won't be acceptable as long as there is no validation from the Rig Veda (Shruti).

As for the respect and acceptability of the medical profession and physicians according to the Rig Veda and in society, the above references (1) and (2) contain ample evidence.

The dharmasastras can legitimately claim scriptural support from sruti because the Yajur Veda accepts the position they take on showing contempt and disrespect for doctors. Are you now going to say that Yajur Veda is also not a part of Hindu scripture?

Everything ultimately has to be in agreement with the Rig Veda.

That is your own interpretation of Hinduism.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

You can enter any shit-hole and come back with a lot of goo, thinking and calling it a dharmasastra of / by Apastamba, Gautama, Visnu, and Vasistha et al., but that won't be acceptable as long as there is no validation from the Rig Veda (Shruti).

As for the respect and acceptability of the medical profession and physicians according to the Rig Veda and in society, the above references (1) and (2) contain ample evidence.

The dharmasastras can legitimately claim scriptural support from sruti because the Yajur Veda accepts the position they take on showing contempt and disrespect for doctors. Are you now going to say that Yajur Veda is also not a part of Hindu scripture?

Everything ultimately has to be in agreement with the Rig Veda.

That is your own interpretation of Hinduism.

Seva, in your article criticising Manu Smriti you have written that everything has to be in agreement with Sruti (so far as hinduism is concerned). Since Sruti includes Yajur Veda I suggest you change the wording in accordance with your new position that everything has to be in agreement with Rig Veda.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

The dharmasastras can legitimately claim scriptural support from sruti because the Yajur Veda accepts the position they take on showing contempt and disrespect for doctors. Are you now going to say that Yajur Veda is also not a part of Hindu scripture?

Everything ultimately has to be in agreement with the Rig Veda.

That is your own interpretation of Hinduism.

Seva, in your article criticising Manu Smriti you have written that everything has to be in agreement with Sruti (so far as hinduism is concerned). Since Sruti includes Yajur Veda I suggest you change the wording in accordance with your new position that everything has to be in agreement with Rig Veda.

 
No need for that. It's already there in several articles / blogs, such as
 
"Although there are many texts that form the Srutis, there is a definite hierarchy or precedence related to their order. Rig Veda stands at the top in significance as a Sruti because it is recognized as the oldest or the most ancient Hindu scripture."  
(Ref.: "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" .... http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html)  

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Everything ultimately has to be in agreement with the Rig Veda.

That is your own interpretation of Hinduism.

Seva, in your article criticising Manu Smriti you have written that everything has to be in agreement with Sruti (so far as hinduism is concerned). Since Sruti includes Yajur Veda I suggest you change the wording in accordance with your new position that everything has to be in agreement with Rig Veda.

 
No need for that. It's already there in several articles / blogs, such as
 
"Although there are many texts that form the Srutis, there is a definite hierarchy or precedence related to their order. Rig Veda stands at the top in significance as a Sruti because it is recognized as the oldest or the most ancient Hindu scripture."  
(Ref.: "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" .... http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html)  

You should add in your blog that this is your own view not supported by any scholarly or scriptural view.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

That is your own interpretation of Hinduism.

Seva, in your article criticising Manu Smriti you have written that everything has to be in agreement with Sruti (so far as hinduism is concerned). Since Sruti includes Yajur Veda I suggest you change the wording in accordance with your new position that everything has to be in agreement with Rig Veda.

 
No need for that. It's already there in several articles / blogs, such as
 
"Although there are many texts that form the Srutis, there is a definite hierarchy or precedence related to their order. Rig Veda stands at the top in significance as a Sruti because it is recognized as the oldest or the most ancient Hindu scripture."  
(Ref.: "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" .... http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html)  

You should add in your blog that this is your own view not supported by any scholarly or scriptural view.

In the texts on Hinduism, including the Vedas and Upanisads, the Rig (or Rik) Veda is accorded the first mention (ahead of others), which is a clear indication that the Rig Veda precedes all the rest and has the highest precedence.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva, in your article criticising Manu Smriti you have written that everything has to be in agreement with Sruti (so far as hinduism is concerned). Since Sruti includes Yajur Veda I suggest you change the wording in accordance with your new position that everything has to be in agreement with Rig Veda.

 
No need for that. It's already there in several articles / blogs, such as
 
"Although there are many texts that form the Srutis, there is a definite hierarchy or precedence related to their order. Rig Veda stands at the top in significance as a Sruti because it is recognized as the oldest or the most ancient Hindu scripture."  
(Ref.: "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" .... http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html)  

You should add in your blog that this is your own view not supported by any scholarly or scriptural view.

In the texts on Hinduism, including the Vedas and Upanisads, the Rig (or Rik) Veda is accorded the first mention (ahead of others), which is a clear indication that the Rig Veda precedes all the rest and has the highest precedence.

chronologically being mentioned first does not mean Rig Veda has the highest precedence. No school of hindu philosophy claims Rig Veda has a higher precedence over Yajur Veda.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
 
No need for that. It's already there in several articles / blogs, such as
 
"Although there are many texts that form the Srutis, there is a definite hierarchy or precedence related to their order. Rig Veda stands at the top in significance as a Sruti because it is recognized as the oldest or the most ancient Hindu scripture."  
(Ref.: "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" .... http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html)  

You should add in your blog that this is your own view not supported by any scholarly or scriptural view.

In the texts on Hinduism, including the Vedas and Upanisads, the Rig (or Rik) Veda is accorded the first mention (ahead of others), which is a clear indication that the Rig Veda precedes all the rest and has the highest precedence.

chronologically being mentioned first does not mean Rig Veda has the highest precedence. No school of hindu philosophy claims Rig Veda has a higher precedence over Yajur Veda.

 Vedic / Hindu philosophies (including the Vedanta, etc.) have their roots in the Rig Veda. So, your statement "No school of hindu philosophy claims Rig Veda has a higher precedence over Yajur Veda" has no relevance on this topic (in questioning Rig Veda's precedence over Yajur Veda).

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

You should add in your blog that this is your own view not supported by any scholarly or scriptural view.

In the texts on Hinduism, including the Vedas and Upanisads, the Rig (or Rik) Veda is accorded the first mention (ahead of others), which is a clear indication that the Rig Veda precedes all the rest and has the highest precedence.

chronologically being mentioned first does not mean Rig Veda has the highest precedence. No school of hindu philosophy claims Rig Veda has a higher precedence over Yajur Veda.

 Vedic / Hindu philosophies (including the Vedanta, etc.) have their roots in the Rig Veda. So, your statement "No school of hindu philosophy claims Rig Veda has a higher precedence over Yajur Veda" has no relevance on this topic (in questioning Rig Veda's precedence over Yajur Veda).

Incorrect. The Hindu philosophies claim allegiance to the entire set of Veda, and not just Rig Veda. (The caveat being that some hindu philosophies like Sankhya are non-Vedic--even anti-Vedic-- in their original form.) They do not say one Vedic text is superior to another or has higher precedence than another.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:


In the texts on Hinduism, including the Vedas and Upanisads, the Rig (or Rik) Veda is accorded the first mention (ahead of others), which is a clear indication that the Rig Veda precedes all the rest and has the highest precedence.

chronologically being mentioned first does not mean Rig Veda has the highest precedence. No school of hindu philosophy claims Rig Veda has a higher precedence over Yajur Veda.

 Vedic / Hindu philosophies (including the Vedanta, etc.) have their roots in the Rig Veda. So, your statement "No school of hindu philosophy claims Rig Veda has a higher precedence over Yajur Veda" has no relevance on this topic (in questioning Rig Veda's precedence over Yajur Veda).

Incorrect. The Hindu philosophies claim allegiance to the entire set of Veda, and not just Rig Veda. (The caveat being that some hindu philosophies like Sankhya are non-Vedic--even anti-Vedic-- in their original form.) They do not say one Vedic text is superior to another or has higher precedence than another.

Any allegiance with respect to the Veda implies the Rig Veda because of its precedence over the rest.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

chronologically being mentioned first does not mean Rig Veda has the highest precedence. No school of hindu philosophy claims Rig Veda has a higher precedence over Yajur Veda.

 Vedic / Hindu philosophies (including the Vedanta, etc.) have their roots in the Rig Veda. So, your statement "No school of hindu philosophy claims Rig Veda has a higher precedence over Yajur Veda" has no relevance on this topic (in questioning Rig Veda's precedence over Yajur Veda).

Incorrect. The Hindu philosophies claim allegiance to the entire set of Veda, and not just Rig Veda. (The caveat being that some hindu philosophies like Sankhya are non-Vedic--even anti-Vedic-- in their original form.) They do not say one Vedic text is superior to another or has higher precedence than another.

Any allegiance with respect to the Veda implies the Rig Veda because of its precedence over the rest.

That is your personal view and you are entitled to it.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

 Vedic / Hindu philosophies (including the Vedanta, etc.) have their roots in the Rig Veda. So, your statement "No school of hindu philosophy claims Rig Veda has a higher precedence over Yajur Veda" has no relevance on this topic (in questioning Rig Veda's precedence over Yajur Veda).

Incorrect. The Hindu philosophies claim allegiance to the entire set of Veda, and not just Rig Veda. (The caveat being that some hindu philosophies like Sankhya are non-Vedic--even anti-Vedic-- in their original form.) They do not say one Vedic text is superior to another or has higher precedence than another.

Any allegiance with respect to the Veda implies the Rig Veda because of its precedence over the rest.

That is your personal view and you are entitled to it.

Far from it, as I said earlier ... whenever a reference is made to or regarding the Veda in general (including in the Vedas, Upanisads and even the Smritis), the precedence of the Rig Veda is implied over the rest (by listing usually the Rig Veda ahead of other texts).

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Incorrect. The Hindu philosophies claim allegiance to the entire set of Veda, and not just Rig Veda. (The caveat being that some hindu philosophies like Sankhya are non-Vedic--even anti-Vedic-- in their original form.) They do not say one Vedic text is superior to another or has higher precedence than another.

Any allegiance with respect to the Veda implies the Rig Veda because of its precedence over the rest.

That is your personal view and you are entitled to it.

Far from it, as I said earlier ... whenever a reference is made to or regarding the Veda in general (including in the Vedas, Upanisads and even the Smritis), the precedence of the Rig Veda is implied over the rest (by listing usually the Rig Veda ahead of other texts).

The precise chronology or sequence does not imply precedence. The reason the Rig Veda is referred to earlier when all the Samhitas are listed together (in traditional hindu texts) is not because it takes precedence over the other Samhitas but because it is believed to be older than the other Samhitas. The Rig Veda is a highly stratified document composed over a period of several centuries. Likewise for the Atharva Veda. Portions of the Atharva Veda antedate portions of the Rig Veda according to modern scholars.

Also, when the sequence of Samhitas is given, the Yajur Veda is listed second and Sama Veda third. But we know that Sama Veda is just the Rig Veda set to music (with a few extra verses).  

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Any allegiance with respect to the Veda implies the Rig Veda because of its precedence over the rest.

That is your personal view and you are entitled to it.

Far from it, as I said earlier ... whenever a reference is made to or regarding the Veda in general (including in the Vedas, Upanisads and even the Smritis), the precedence of the Rig Veda is implied over the rest (by listing usually the Rig Veda ahead of other texts).

The precise chronology or sequence does not imply precedence. The reason the Rig Veda is referred to earlier when all the Samhitas are listed together (in traditional hindu texts) is not because it takes precedence over the other Samhitas but because it is believed to be older than the other Samhitas. The Rig Veda is a highly stratified document composed over a period of several centuries. Likewise for the Atharva Veda. Portions of the Atharva Veda antedate portions of the Rig Veda according to modern scholars.

Also, when the sequence of Samhitas is given, the Yajur Veda is listed second and Sama Veda third. But we know that Sama Veda is just the Rig Veda set to music (with a few extra verses).  

The fact that the Sama Veda is just the Rig Veda set to music (with very few extra verses) but is named after the Yajur Veda in the sequence of Vedas disproves your hypothesis.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

That is your personal view and you are entitled to it.

Far from it, as I said earlier ... whenever a reference is made to or regarding the Veda in general (including in the Vedas, Upanisads and even the Smritis), the precedence of the Rig Veda is implied over the rest (by listing usually the Rig Veda ahead of other texts).

The precise chronology or sequence does not imply precedence. The reason the Rig Veda is referred to earlier when all the Samhitas are listed together (in traditional hindu texts) is not because it takes precedence over the other Samhitas but because it is believed to be older than the other Samhitas. The Rig Veda is a highly stratified document composed over a period of several centuries. Likewise for the Atharva Veda. Portions of the Atharva Veda antedate portions of the Rig Veda according to modern scholars.

Also, when the sequence of Samhitas is given, the Yajur Veda is listed second and Sama Veda third. But we know that Sama Veda is just the Rig Veda set to music (with a few extra verses).  

The fact that the Sama Veda is just the Rig Veda set to music (with very few extra verses) but is named after the Yajur Veda in the sequence of Vedas disproves your hypothesis.

You are wrong.
Sam or Sama Veda coming in second or third place in  the shruri listing does not change the first placing (highest precedence) for the Rig Veda.
Moreover, the musical nature of the Sama Veda is not the only difference between Sama Veda and Rig Veda.
Anyway, depending on the references to the Vedas (in terms of their context or application), in some texts  / writings the Sama Veda is placed third (behind Rig Veda and Yajur Veda) whereas in some others in the second place (behind Rig Veda and ahead of Yajur Veda), thus implying again that Rig Veda always holds the first place.