|
Maitreyee
| |
| | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 2:23 pm: | 
| 
|
malaa ho AjaUna kLt naaihyao kI tumhI laÜk samaajaÊ Qama-Ê kuTumba vyavasqaa maÜDkLIsa yaoNao AsalaI cacaa-
ka krtaya²
[qao jao puÉYaaMnaa Aa<aa sahja imaLto ikmaana tovaZo trI svaatn~\ya Aaho ka s~I laaÆÆ spouse cyaa maR%yaU nantr puÉYaacao samaajaatIla sqaana badlato kaÆ s~I cao badlato² maulao hÜNao / na hÜNao yaava$na samaajaat maana - Apmaana puÉYaalaa sahna kravaa laagatÜ kaÆ s~I laa laagatܲ jaanavao Gaatlao ka naahIÊ sanQyaa kolaI ka
naahI yaacyaa caÝkXyaa kuNaI krtM kaÆ pNa maulaIcao kpDoÊ itnao iTklaI laavalaI ka naahI maMgaLsaU~ Gaalato
ka naahI yaacyaa jagaalaa pncaayatI Asatat Ê Asatat ka naahIÆ maga ho ikmaana svaatn~\ya ijaqao naaihyao
itqao vyai> svaatn~\yaacaa Aitroka ba_la iBatI vya> krNyaat kaya Aqa- Aaho² puÉYaaMnaa jaovaZo svaatn~\ya
Aaho %yaamauLo to kaya kuTumba bauDvatÊ Qama- QaÜ@yaat AaNat ca iÔrtat vaaTto²²
]gaIca kahIcyaa kahI 
|
QaÜMDÜpMtÊ
maQaoca kaya Asao tumacao post Ê izk Aaho naa sagaLMÊ ka BB cauklaa ÆÆ
|
Manuswini
| |
| | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
|
Aro baap ro ²² rvaMqa krayacao qaaMbaNaar naahI Æ naahI mhNataya Ƴ ho kiQa badlaNaarÆ´.
Cana Barpur capacity Aaho laÜkaMcaI ilaihNyaacaI AaiNa rvaMqa krayaica .. gaalaa maagao kaZitla bahutok
jokes apart .. interesting introspection though
|
Charu_ag
| |
| | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
|
maO~oyaIÊ
1´ maaJyaa sauÉvaatI pasaunacyaa kuzlyaaca pÜsT maQyao maI is~yaanaa imaLt AsalaolaI vaagaNauk barÜbar
AahoÊ Asa maI kuzohI mhTlaolao naahI. ivaQavaa is~laa imaLNaarI vaagaNauk hI Apmaana janakca navho tr
saMtapjaNak Asato. itlaa svatÁcyaa CÜT\yaa CÜT\yaa h@kaMsaazI iktI laZava laagatÊ ho maI Anaok izkanaI
paihlaolao Aaho. itlaa maulagaa nasaola trÊ itcaI kaya Avasqaa hÜto hohI paihlaolao Aaho. AXyaavaoLI itlaa
imaLNaarI vaagaNauk barÜbar Aaho Asa maI ksa mhNaonaÆ
samaajaacaI caÝkT yaa Xabdacaa Aqa- jao Aaja samaajaat caalalaya to yaÜgyaca AahoÊ Asaa naahI. samaajaacaI
caÝkT ek vya>IÊ ek kuTuMbaÊ ek samaaja yaaMcao prspratIla naato Asaa Gyaa. maaNausa samaajaip`ya AahoÊ
AaiNa tÜ Baartasaar#yaa doXaacaa ivacaar kolaa tr samaajaaiXavaya rahu Xakt naahI. eKaVa gaÜYTIcao AacarNa
krtanaaÊ ekTo caalaayalaa tr sauÉvaat kracaÊ pNa tumacyaabarÜbar samaaja doKIla yaola yaasaazI p`ya%na
kra.
2´ svaatM~\ya ho samaaja saapoxa Asaavao.
maI jaoMvha ekTI svatM~ AsatoÊ toMvha %yaa svatM~\yaacaa malaaca kaya kuNaalaaca fayada naahI. maaJao
svaataM~\ya ho kovaL maaJyaapurto na rahta maaJyaa barÜbarca dusaáyaa vya>Ilaa hI to imaLalao tr AapNa
vya>I mhNauna svatM~ AahÜtÊ Asa malaa vaaTt. maI svatM~ AahoÊ hI Apuvaa- na rhta to maaJyaa Aasapsacyaa
samaajaacaoca ek svaaBaavaIk AMga AahoÊ Asa hÜNao mhNajaoca samaaja saapoxa svaatM~\ya.
ipnaajaÊ tu maaJaI yaa AaQaIcaI cacaa- jar vaacalaIsa tr tulaa baroca mau_o spYT hÜtIla. Aaja svatM~ ivacaar
krNyaacaI jaaNaIva Aaplyaalaa iXaxaNaamauLo JaalaI Aaho. pNa ha maulaBaut h@khI ijalaa imaLt naahI itcaa
maI ivacaar krto. ho iXaxaNa maaJyasaar#yaa dusaáyaa is~laa imaLalaoÊ AaiNa to maI do} Xaklao trca maaJao
svaataM~\ya karNaI laagalao Asa maI samajaona.
yaa ivaYayaavar maaJyaakDcaM ilahINyaasaarK maToiryala saMpla Aaho. baakI AnauBava vagaOro prt kQaItrI.
pNa Aata qaaMbato.
|
pNa caa$ Asa Acaanak samaajaatlao sagaLo laÜk svatM~ hÜtIlaca ksaoÆ maaga- kÜNaI naa kÜNaI daKvatÜca.
AaQaI mauzBar laÜkca %yaacaa purskar krtat baakIcao inaYaoQa krNaaroca jaast Barlaolao Asatat. hLU hLU
samaaja sauQaarNaa hÜto.
maO~oyaI AgadI AgadI
|
Peshawa
| |
| | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
|
The smallest unit is a human being.
These units form families.
families form societies.
so aschig you r saying in terms of importance
Societies < families < human beings
As evident with this logic the characteristics of human beings decide the characteristics of families and characteristics of families decide characteristics of societies
The problem that is being discussed here is what is the
a) Normative characteristic that a human being should have
b) Is it possible to achieve that normative behavior from maximum number of human beings?
c) In order to do this what should be done?
So it is evident that on every point there were, there are and there will be thousands of opinions
Bottom up approach or top down approach?
* Bottom up *
a) Allow utmost freedom to human being (no normative behavior) in this is any one expecting slightest control over the family and social structures at all?
* Top down *
But Hey wait we are social animals and we can use social structures for betterment of our individual lives... but to achieve these structures
b) Restrictions on family structures and restriction of human behaviors are and will be there...
Or third *mixed mode* some BU some TD
What to do? Is there ANY optimal solution out there? At least a *Correct * approach?
The implementation part of the issue ?
PS:
If anything I am too proud of our ancestors who consciously grappling with these problems tried to gave us a system (caste). With all its inbuilt faults that has survived(stable) the test of time and provided solid foundations for nearly 5000 years.
Before jumping to conclusions and beating all that is *old* at least all of us should use our *educated* minds to *see* what our predecessors have done. What is the nature of the problem? What solutions are out there then we should assess their work and if still we think we CAN do a better job I think they would have wanted us to DO it... After all we have *tradition* of questioning and healthy skepticism as well how can we forget that?
as many of u know manu tries to give(me thinks me right here) normative behaviors with issues that are *personal* (including *crapping*) for an individual... also kauTilya did it (*with ••• life*) i wonder why?
|
Prafull
| |
| | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 9:55 pm: |
|
|
ho kQaI badlaNaarÆ
http://www.ekincaglar.com/coin/flash.html
|
Sayonara
| |
| | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 10:40 pm: |
|
|
(a ivaYayaaXaI related laoK vaacanaat Aalaa mhNaUna [kDo Taklaa.
http://www.esakal.com/20051027/madhura9.html
|
Dhondopant
| |
| | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
|
dIpaMjalaI..
to pÜsT Aapla Asaca ilahIla... ivaYaoXa kahI naahI. jao vaaTt to ilahItÜ. ³kahIjaNa mhNtIla vaa+ola to
ilahItÜ´
maaJaI pÜsTsa vaacauna maI ek ÉZIip`ya maaNausa Aaho Asao vaaTt Asaola naaÆ... pNa tsao naahI.
kÜNa%yaahI samaajaatlyaa is~yaanaa jaovhDo svaatM~\ya imaLola ÉZIpasauna tovhZ\yaa %yaa puZo yaotIla AaiNa
tov*Z\yaa %yaa ivacaar kÉ laagatIla. punha puÉYa ha s~I caa maulagaa AsatÜca AaiNa %yaa maulaalaa it caaMgalao
GaDvaola. naahI kaÆ...
pNa ho sagaLo krtanaa kahI gaÜYTI jaXaa dovadovata ikMvaa Aaplyaa kahI prMpra yaa AgadIca saÜDuna dovau
nayaot Asao malaa vaaTto. kdaicat ho vaaTNao ÉZIip`yata AsaolahI kuNaacyaa mato.. pNa jyaa saMskarat vaaZlaÜ
%yaacaa hI prINaama Asau XaktÜ AaiNa JaTkna kahI ivacaar svaIkarNao malaa kzINa jaat Asaavao AaiNa punha
Aaplyaa manaat kahI gaÜYTIMcaa kXaaXaI saMbaMQa Asaola Asao vaaTt Asatoca... jasao kuMku AaiNa to Ba`umaQya
vagaOro Aamhalaa vaaTto.
navaáyaacaa p`%yaok " hÜ " laa " hÜ " ca mhTlao pahIjao AaiNa %yaacaa Aadr mhNaNyaapoxaa gaÜ raKlaa pahIjao AXaI puvaI-caI jaI janarIt hÜtI
tI hLuhLu ka hÜnaa pNa kalabaa( hÜt Aaho hI gaÜYT kItI maÜzI Aaho²....
s~I caa Aadr ek vya>I mhNauna savaa-naI kolaa pahIjaoca... Balao tI kuMku lavaÜ kI naa laavaܲ²....
.... pNa kovaL s~Ica kaÆ AapNa ekmaokaMcaa Balao s~I ikMvaa puÉYa AsaÜÊ ekmaokaMcaa ka baro Aadr kÉ nayaoÆ...
saaQaI raMgaot ]Bao rahayacaI iXast Aaho ka AaplyaatÆ... itqaohI e@maokaMnaa laaqaa bau@@yaa Gaalauna
maaNasao ekmaokapuZo jaatat. dusara kuzo duKavalaa tr jaat naahI naa ho saava-jainak zIkaNaI kuzo pahIlao
jaatoÆ... AgadI saaQao saÜpo eTIkoTsa hI Aaplyaat naahIt. dusaáyaaXaI naIT baÜlaayacao to hI tko kzINaÆ
AapNa naomako kuzo caalalaÜ AahÜtÆ rÜjacaa popr vaacalaa tr kaya vaacaavao laagatoÆ... gauMDigarIÆ Ba`YT\caarÆlaacalaucaptÆ
baotala vaagaNaaro rajakarNaIÆ AaiNa %yaaMcao %yaahIpoxaa baotalapNao vaagaNaaro ip<aoÆ AaiNa %yaaMcao
tov*D\yaaca baotalapNao kolaola planning? ... vaYaa-nauvaYao- dIvaaLI saajarI krtÜ pNa Ajauna vaYa-Bar vaIja kXaI inamaa-Na kravaI yaacaI A@kla
Aaplyaalaa yaot naahI²² yaalaa kaya mhNaNaarÆ drvaYaI- tÜ baaravaI caa p`vaoXaGaÜLÆ.. rolvaovar paTImaagauna
puZuna dusarI rolavao AapTto... AaiNa ho kQao kQaI naahI tr t@yaa p`maaNaat kI Aaplyaalaa kahI vaaTtca
naahI²²... AaiNa punha to ]%sava²² jyaaMcao p`yaÜjana f> naacagaaNyaapurto rahIlao Aaho²² isanaomaatlyaa
baotala gaaNyaavar naacaunaca ka dovaacaI imarvaNauk inaGatoÆ.. %yaaeovajaI ra~I naaTk ikMvaa tr kItItrI
]pËma rabavata yaotat naaÆ pNa Aaplyaalaa Aaja to nakÜya²..
kItI ilahavao²²... Aata tumhalaa maahItca Aaho jao Aaho to²² saaQaI samaja AXaI naahI rahIlaI² kQaI naa
kQaI yaacaa kDolaÜT hÜNaarca... pNa tÜ saÝmya vhavaaÊ AaiNa lavakr na vhavaa Asao vaaTt Asaola tr Aaplyaa
jyaa kahI prMpra iXallak Aahot AaiNa jyaa saÜpopNaanao paLu XaktÜ %yaa paLNao..
vartI kuNaItrI mhTlao Aaho kI hLuhLu vya>IsvaatM~\ya vagaOro sava- gaÜYTI yaotIla AaiNa hLuhLu ho badla
hÜtIla. to tsaoca hÜNaar Aaho²²...
pNa Qaima-k ikMvaa saMsËuitk prMpraMcao AaiQaYzana saÜDu nayao Asao Aamhalaa vaaTto. naahItr maaNasao
kÜNa%yaahI hotuivanaa caokaLuna jaatIla AaiNa kXaalaaca Qaba-MQa naahI rahNaar.. yaadvaI ha %yaacaa AMt
Asaola.
Baartalaa savaa-t kXaacaI AavaXyakta Aaja Asaola tr " Qamaa-caI " .. yaatunaca ]cca caarI~ AaiNa ]caca Qyaoya AsaNaarI kma-p`vaNa maaNasao inamaa-Na hÜtIla. %yaacamauLo
Qamaa-caI baa( AaiNa AaMtrIk hI dÜnahI AMgao jaÜpasalaoca pahIjaot.
|
Dhondopant
| |
| | Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 11:46 pm: |
|
|
ilaMbauTIMbau naI " raYT/badla " ha jaÜ ivaYaya kaZlaa Aaho %yaaba_la...
tÜ raYT/badla Jaalaolaaca Aaho. " raYT/ " ha Xabd Kup maÜza Aaho.
AapNa tr ek jamaava JaalaÜya jamaava.
Qamaa-caI vaosaNa hvaIca²²... p`%yaok vya>Ilaa ina samaajaalaahI²²
|
Bee
| |
| | Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 1:05 am: |
|
|
maO~oyaIÊ tuJao varIla pÜYT KUp sarL saaQao AaiNa ivaYayaalaa Qa$na Aaho. KUp AavaDlao.
|
Papalet
| |
| | Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
|
idvaaLIcaa ÔraL Jaalaa ka Æ naahItr ivakt AaNaavaa laagaola. ÔraLat kÜNakÜNato badla kalamaanapr%vao Jaalao
Æ
|
Megha16
| |
| | Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
|
maO~\yaI
tu AgadI barÜbar baÜlalaIsa .
purYaalaa jaovaZ svaaMt~\ya AahI to pahIla tr s~I laa Ajauna svataÁcao inaNa-ya Gyaalaa pNa baMdI Aaho
. jasa kI navaracyaa maU%yau natr AXaa iktI is~yaa kI %yaanaI dusaro lagna kolao . Asao iktI puÉYa Aahot
%yaanaI lagna kolao naahI .
|
Sunidhee
| |
| | Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
|
Prafull ni dileli link far karoon aahe. Pahavat nahi...
|
Yog
| |
| | Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 6:45 pm: |
|
|
pMtÊ Cana ilahIlayat..
and heres something interesting:
Woho, a reality check or wake up call...
funny/weired/hipocratic.. u decide :
a foot ball team beat another team. The coach of the loosing team after the match responds to a question saying (it was not in the heat of the moment response), quote:
"It was clear TCU (winning team) had a lot more Afro-American players than we did and they ran a lot faster than we did."
"It just seems to me to be that way," he said. "Afro-American kids can run very well. That doesn't mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can't run, but it's very obvious to me that they run extremely well."
the academy needed to recruit faster players and noting, "you don't see many minority athletes in our program."
But wait a min...... the guy issues an appology statement in the evening saying,
"I have made a mistake and I ask for everyone's forgiveness," he said. "I regret these statements and I sincerely hope they will not reflect negatively toward the academy or our coaches or our players and I thank the administration for the opportunity to make this apology."
U wonder why...? cause he used the term african american or black athelets...
WOW !!!! Think about it. The guy merely said what is in fact statisctically proven fact and was backed by another person that I watched on the news, who wrote the book Taboo (abt all the hoopla abt racism and all).The author said in the interview, I fail to understand what prompted the appology and how could anyone see any racial remarks in such statement during present times where we live in the scientific, factual and statistical world !!!!
Now there could be many dimensions to this statement but imagine, just even the prima facy aspect of that statement doesn't point to racism...
AND where does this happen.. No where else but the Land of Freedom, so Called Protectors of freedom, the Nation that calls itself the Superpower...U.S.A.
So much for **** "freedom of speech"!!! that even a mention of word "Black" no matter how much factual/statistical it might be, triggers what can be termed as "nothing less than idiotism"....
I wonder, did I assume a LOT about "individual freedom", let alone freedom of speech, while writing on this BB, where some women feel that "their freedom is not respected !!""
This little piece is NOT to point to anyone or anything, but ironically just found it corelating to some discussion here...
one's freedom viewed as aggression on another. ?
Never the less I find myself amused and convinced that even the simple word "Black" seems to be more "dark" or "Blackerrrrr" than it actually is, in the land of Freedom !!!
In case you would like to read:
http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/5026870
|
yaÜgaÊ
unrelated to this discussion on this BB, just out of curiosity, I would like to know the statistical study and analysis used as support for the statement below:
" WOW !!!! Think about it. The guy merely said what is in fact statisctically proven fact and was backed by another person that I watched on the news"
I tend to be skeptical when reading statistics related to ethnicity because in my experience they are invariably tainted by stereotypes. If this is just your opinion, please say so. unless this was a double blind study done on a vastly diverse sample, I would take it with a grain of salt.
regarding the story, the coach of the loosing team seems to have had a case of the sour grapes syndrome
baakI tumacaM caalaU Va.
|
Aschig
| |
| | Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:33 pm: |
|
|
> * Bottom up *
> a) Allow utmost freedom to human being (no normative behavior) in this is any
> one expecting slightest control over the family and social structures at all?
This is where I do not understand why people assume that left to themselves people will disintegrate in to animals.
> * Top down *
> But Hey wait we are social animals and we can use social structures for
> betterment of our individual lives... but to achieve these structures
> b) Restrictions on family structures and restriction of human behaviors
> are and will be there...
This social structure can essentially come from within. It does not have to be forced from without.
> What to do? Is there ANY optimal solution out there? At least a *Correct *
> approach? The implementation part of the issue ?
There of course is NEVER an approach which is THE correct one. Our ancestors made some (possibly correct) choices for their time and age. We need to make ours rather than being lazy and assume what was "right" then must still be right. Certainly some of it still is, but by no means all.
> PS: If anything I am too proud of our ancestors who consciously grappling ...
I too am proud of the aspects they have done well in. But these days I find it better to find pride in the unified achievements of the human race. And that is why I feel that our society should adopt those aspects of the wes
tern culture that are good. As it happens, our youngsters have taken to coke and rock but not some of the other foundations. Part of the blame could be the strict hierarchy in our families. Not only do women not have a voice, but the children don't either. Even male.
> Before jumping to conclusions and beating all that is *old* ...
Yes, we should always keep the good parts of what has been built up over ages. I am all for youngers respecting their elders, something that is ingrained in our society. But I will not want to force them to respect elders. I have taken a "wrong" example just to make a point.
> manu tries to give normative behaviors ... i wonder why?
I have nothing against manusmriti (memoirs of manavs - the rules of social behavior) since they were just documenting the prevalent norms. They were not even related to religion. Their codification is great.
But we need to select from it what *we* think we should select.
If we do not, we are no different from some people of some other religions who follow their religious texts blindly.
|
Yog
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:02 am: |
|
|
Punya,
Thx.
But I guess you missed the whole point:
The example was to show how even in countries like USA, freedom of speech is NOT that free... this has nothing to do with sour grapes, cause the coach in question is NOT an amaetuer. This "sour grape" syndorm might be your way of looking at it, sadly so.
Regarding STATISTICS, its NOT my openion, I just wrote what exaxctly the Author said on the televesion.. if u want to verify and read more u can go to that link. He is not a naieve person as you and me to talk something vague about Statistics esp. on TV, and when he is an author of a book that deals with such issues.
By this logic u will question anyone's comments or study no matter how "well earned" it could be and say that you don't approve of it cause you think its merely miselading study or happens to be tainted version or a case of some sour grape syndrom.
So rather than that why donn u get on the net and find out for urself..? that might clear some of your confusion.. and doesn;t matter what you and I think, FACTS remain !
So I guess my point(which u missed completely) was that irrespective of supportive facts or stats (which in this case one can't neglect), a genuine evalution of the reasons for loosing (which in this case was the coach's genuine reading that the opponent team had better running players who happened to be black, hence which supports his argument based on so many yrs of experience that the afro ameicans run better)could not be mentioned in public, "Just cause some other folks/group of people found it racial"...
so one's freedom (of speech) was in this case judged offensive.
Hope now you read this without any biase or syndrom..
~d
|
Aschig
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:02 am: |
|
|
yog, he does have the freedom of speech to make racist comments. It is just that others have the freedom to sue him.
Lets transport this to the Indian society. Lets grant women the freedom to remarry after their husband dies (they have it of course - is is just due to social "stigma" that it is assumed that they don't), then other should be free to say that she is too "forward" (whatever that means). She would most likely just ignore them, but if they are overdoing it, she could sue them for slander. And so on.
BTW, here is a link to women's rights.
|
Yog
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
|
Aschiq,
I don't aggree with ur statement and hence the analogy. Cause to make a racist comment is a "misuse" of such freedom of speech, in my openion.
I just wanted to point out that "on its own merrit (which again certain people who objected it to begin with and asked for an appology)the statement made by the coach didn't sound like or points to racism" STILL
it was viewed as a racist statement, for reasons best unkown ??
Kr tr yaa ]dahrNaatÊ inavvaL %yaacyaa comment poxaa [tr rajakIyaÊ AaiNa jaastI k$na Aaiqa-k va saamaaijak ihtsambanQa japNyaacaa p`ya%na Aaho Asao idsaUna
yaoto.... just looks like, individual freeodm is a "big word" and when every person interpretes it in his/her own way it just leads to a "vicious circle".. where one proclaims it and the other objects to it !
|
Aschig
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
|
yog, you are partly right about misuse since the statement was about someone else.
Had he said something like: "I am black", perhaps no one would have objected. Or that "I am black and therefore I can run fast", again no one would have said anything (hopefully - I have not heard of self-racism - but it is close to fascism).
But, if someone says: I want to wear such and such clothes, or I do not want to wear such and such ornament, I do not see why people get all pumped up against it. It is not about someone else, is it? That is what personal freedom is about.
|
Champak
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
|
ivaQavaa punaÁivavaahabaabat ek ]dahrNa.....
maaJyaa vaga- ima~acao dÜna vaYaa- puvaI- lagnaa naMtr AvaGyaa 15 idvasaa naMtr ApGaatI inaQana Jaalao.
to kuTuMba nagar ijal(atIla eka KoDo gaavaatIla AsaunahIÊ laÜk kaya mhNatIla (a caa ivacaar na krta kahI
maihnyaat ca %yaa ima~acyaa Aa vaiDlaaMnaI %yaa maulaIcao ³mhMjao %yaaMcaa ivaQavaa saunao cao ´ %yaa
ima~a cyaa caulat BaavaaXaI punha lagna laavauna idlao.
|
Bee
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
|
[qao ivaQavaa maulaIMba_la baroca jaNa baÜlat Aahot. saQyaacyaa kaLat ivaQavaa ivavaahalaa kuNaI Aaxaop
Gaot naahI. p`Xna ha Aaho kIÊ ivaQavaoXaI lagna krayalaa maulao puZo hÜt naahI. to svatÁ ksaohI Asalao
trI %yaaMnaa kumaarI maulagaIca laagato. ]dahrNa maaJyaa tacaoca Aaho. itcao lagna Jaalao ina dusaáyaaca
idvaXaI itcaa ptI ApGaatat gaolaa. maga tbbala satra vaYao- ]laTlyaanaMtr tacao punha lagna Jaalao. ta
idsaayalaa sauMdr hÜtIÊ caaMgalyaa naÜkrIlaa hÜtIÊ ivaQavaa AsaUnahI kumaarIca hÜtI karNa tsao kahI GaDlaoca
navhtoÊ sagaLo kahI caaMgalao caaMgalaoca hÜtoÊ Ô> naD hÜtI pihlyaa ivavaahacaI. iktItrI maulao paihlaIt.
p`%yaokacyaa p`itiËyaa ekca. ho AaQaI ka naahI saaMigatlao tumacyaa maulaIba_laÊ AamhI Aalaoca nasatÜ
maulagaI baGaayalaa. Even ivaQaurÊ Ôarkt GaotlaolaoÊ ivadRp AaiNa gaavaMZLÊ dID dmaDIcao AaiNa dIDXahaNao maulaohI tXaaca saurat
baÜlat. KUp vaaT AnauBava Aalaot saÜyarIkI baGatanaa. XaovaTI tacao lagna Jaalao. itcaa navara AivavaahItca
hÜtaÊ tapoxaa dhapTInao idsaayalaa sauMdr AahoÊ naÜkrIhI Cana Aaho. kaya mhNaavao (alaa.. yaÜgaayaÜga
kI p`ya%na.. kI AaNaKI kahIÆ
dusaro Asao kI (a satra vaYaa-tÊ kuNaIhI talaa Asao mhNaalao naahI kI tU paMZrI saaDI pirQaana krÊ kaLI
iTklaI vaaprÊ saNavarÊ lagnakayaa-laa jaa} nakÜsa. mauLat taca [tkI AaQauinak ivacaaraMcaI hÜtI kI kuzlaa
baavaLTpNaa itcyaat idsaUna yaot nasao mhNaUna itlaa kTU AnauBava Ôarca kmaI Aalaot. jyaa baayakaMnaa
Asao AnauBava Aajacyaa kaLat yaotat %yaa kuzotrI kmaI pDtat. %yaaMnaa ZasaLUna TakNaaro %yaat AjaUna Bar
Gaalatat. toMvha jamaola tr AXaa maulaIMcaa Aa%maivaXvaasa vaaZIsa AaNaNyaacaa p`ya%na kravaa hI ivanaMtI.
maagao kivavaya- ivaMdaMcaa naxa~aMcao doNao kaya-Ëma paihlaa %yaat %yaaMnaI svatÁba_la ek saaMigatlao.
to ivaQaur hÜto AaiNa %yaaMcaI ek AT hÜtIÊ to lagna krtIla to ivaQavaoXaIca. XaovaTI %yaaMnaa tXaI maulagaI
imaLalaI. tr saaMgaayacao ta%pya- ho kI %yaaMcyaa kaLathI vyaapk ivacaar krNaaro laÜkM hÜtI.
Aamacyaa samaajaat AaNaKI ek vaaT vaLNa mhNajaoÊ maulagaI maulaapoxaa lahana Asaayalaa hvaI. tIsa vaYaa-caa
maulagaa Asalaa tr %yaalaa 25 pya-Mt AaiNa pstIXaIcaa Asaola tr 30 pya-Mt. maulagaI tIXaIcaI Asaola tr
tI qaÜraD mhNaUna itcaI gaNanaa hÜto AaiNa maga lagnakayaa-laa Anaok ADcaNaI inamaa-Na hÜtat. maulaaMcyaa
baabatIt vayaacaa p`Xna Ôarsao DÜko kaZt naahI. maulagaa maÜza AsalyaamauLo tÜ sahja maulaIvar AiQakar
gaajavaU XaktÜ. TU ba^D 
|
Sayonara
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
|
baIÊ maI tuJyaaXaI AgadI sahmat Aaho. AamhaMlaahI baáyaacada Asaoca AnauBava Aalaot. AgadI saMtap yaotÜ
yaa laÜkaMcaa.
|
Champak
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
|
baIÊ kahI vaoLa AXyaa yaotat ik KoTrajavaL ]Bao krayacaI laayakI nasaNaaáyaa laÜkaMpuZo ha jaI ha jaI
kravao laagato. va. pu. mhNaalao hÜtoÊ jyaalaa garja inamaa-Na hÜto tI %yaalaa laacaar Ana dIna banavato
tr tI garja jaÜ purvau XaktÜ %yaalaa saamaqya-vaana Ana ]_ama.
maulaa maulaIMcyaa vayaatIla AMtrÊ Ana ivaQavaoXaI ivavaah krayalaa nakar doNaaroÊ ho sagaLI kDo ca AsatoÊ
ekhI samaaja Apvaad naahI²
|
aschig, that was exactly my point. That the comments seemed racist rather than based on the fact that (which I still have not been able find definite proof of) african americans are better atheletes.
Thank you for paraphrasing it so well for me.
Yog, I did not miss your point at all. My attempt was to separate this coach's personal feelings from proven facts which may or may not have prompted his statement. "sour grapes" was *my* name for it. and yes, the apology may or may not have been prompted by political reasons, but that was not my interest in this case.
Anyway, I *had* mentioned in my post that my interest was not related to the discussion on this BB, but for my own curiosity. And I believe I have mentioned before, that in the context of the topic of this BB, we have to agree to disagree.
I hope this clears the air some, and I also believe I have nothing more constructive to offer to this discussion.
baIÊ saayaÜÊ caMpk - (a baI baI var baroca idvasaaMnaI ek positive personal experience AaiNa discussion vaacaayalaa imaLalaM. baIÊ Aamacyaa barÜbar ho share kolyaa ba_la Qanyavaad.
|
Yog
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
|
Punya,
I would encourage you to search more on such statistics.i thought at least the remarks by an author on the TV who had done such research, does have enough merrit to think that the Stats do support it, but thats how i think. You might want more proof or 10 different statisticians conforming to that fact, and thats your choice... some people might want 100 proofs.. You see, afterall one has to draw a line and stop. Seems to me your line is still faint one...
May be you can clear your doubts for urself.
(I am basing my openion about "non racist" remarks on the comments made by the author, the coach and other people they interviewed.. for me thats enough cause i do accept the merrit in their evaluation... Perhaps you want to see that statement as Racist and hence you are looking for more proofs/facts to prove it otherwise.. thats your choice.)
Aschiq,
Exactly ! Its GIVEN or Implicit that Individual freedom is NOT about others but oneself.
And wearing saree/tikali or whatever is personal freedom no one has opposed it, but then talking about or pointing old norms/traditions/ etc and trying to prove them wrong or outdated doesn't fit in "individual's freedom" per your own def.
I have already said this in my previous posts, that individual freedom is a vast and vague subject, but I believe that "individual freedom has to coexist with the society". This is similar to posts by Peshwa and others that call for "RTC" (Refernce to Context) Interpretation and application of any philosophy.
|
Manuswini
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:27 pm: |
|
|
bee,
tumcha mat patale.
mi hech majhyaa gelyaa post madhe mhatale hote ki mulana aapalyapekshaa "mulage" kami vayachi(ch) havi asate jyast karun.
tevhaa punya mhanali asa kahi nahi.(dont take this personal Punya).
pan actually asech disun yete.
as for Bee your experience, similar exp I have about one of my friend.
she just got married and second day her husband expired while going to temple. (SAD incidence).
Without consummating marriage. but when friends dad(uncle) was planning for her re-maarige, not a single boy was interested.(agreed its their(boys) wish and their preferences ) but POINT is here, boys who have been widow, boys having so many affairs in the past, boys being in live-in relaitonship or in many relationships were intentionally asking such questions like how many days my friend stayed with her husband? what is the proof marriage is not consummated? etc.
people who are not even worth by looks, education, family background, financial status "in comparison" to this friends family were asking stupid questions and such proposals were sent to my this family by some sarcastic relatives/people(not with intention to help but to make fun like after all she is widow so if she gets "any" boy should do ..such remarks).
anyways, people please read my post neatly. I am not saying that everybody should be "big hearted" or should not have choice to decide about whom to marry or why anyone would marry a widow. but this is just an expereince of one of my friend.
I am NOT saying that one should do this or that or should not have own wishes when it comes to marriage.
even in educated society I guess girl if widow find little tough compare to boy to get married so easily and quickly.
Same is not true. I have seen men after wife's demise gettign married in 3 months or so.
every situation has it own reasons. nothing to do with men or women but still this difference is there ?
|
Peshawa
| |
| | Friday, October 28, 2005 - 11:37 pm: |
|
|
**** This is where I do not understand why people assume that left to themselves people will disintegrate in to animals.
**** This social structure can essentially come from within. It does not have to be forced from without.
then laws are not required at all! laws are "lkshaman reshas" on "left to themselves" It is like saying play withing these compounds... every human behaviour is not conducive for social structures this leads to Restrictions !
Aschig i have no problems of leaving humans to themseleves my point is, in that case one has no control as human behavior is very strange thing and is varied .... one would need to accept whatever structures these behaviors might generate...(gays, drugs, pedofiles, sati and what not) first two cases are (self willing choices) second and third (abuses) ... The nagging fear of all those social scientist in indian tradition was "matsya nyaayaa" in english jungle laws this fear lead them to fanatic control of human behavior. A second approach was education of human mind a slow process it took 1000s of year to come to the point where human lives are respected(?) normatively.
Secondly I take strong objection to the phrase " disintegrate in to animals" which also goes against your own logic that we(humans) should not think removed from and above nature....
What i think you and me both agree upon is that changes are going to be made in the current desposition. what i beleive there are no right and wrong changes but only convinient changes and this is been case from forever every society b4 us has changed their heritage. so he kadhi badalaNaar 4 me is never!
Traditions are living things (aschig memetic reference) as one stream says... the adoption domestication and modification of this organism to our environment is but natural.... U might say u killed some of them from passing to next generation but i thing thats just an illusion what say :-)
|
Aschig
| |
| | Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 4:56 am: |
|
|
peshwa, I think we agree more than we don't, but I would change your words a bit. Rather than saying ho kQaIca badlaNaar naahI , I would say ho satt badlat rhaNaar . In fact, ho satt badlat rhayalaa hvao and that is why we should not get stuck in "rules" that were "invented" eons ago. We should modify them as per todays needs (who decides that is a question that can only be addressed once we agree that there *can* be a need to change).
There are three kinds of laws: (1) natural laws that no one can break e.g. no one can go faster than the speed of light, (2) legal laws that are decided by a group of people after deliberations and it is for the general good that they be followed e.g. do not jump a red light, and (3) social laws which are either handed down from antiquity, or are decided by the current day norms. Saying "namaskar" is the former, and saying "hi" is the later. The issue here is that not all social laws need to be "forced". sati was one such, but the opposite has been made in to a legal law and no one on this BB will dare to say that sati was a good tradition.
The diff between animals and humans is that we can model the rest of the universe with ourselves in it and the animals cant. My point is that we are sentient enough not to go back to a stage where all we think of is about lust (which is NOT an animal property, but is attributed to them in a literary sense).
This leads to the point that yog has made:
"no one is against personal freedom, but one should not debunk ALL old traditions BECAUSE they are old". Absolutely correct about the second point. I am not sure everyone agrees with him on the first point.
To make this discussion more fruitful and for it to actually lead to some action items, it will be interesting to see a few people, e.g. dhondopant, yog, peshwa, gs1, matreyee, priya (to name a few) list 5 points related to women that can change, and 5 points that should not change. That will help us all to talk in definitive terms rather than abstract terms where we contradict (or sometimes complement) each other without all this efort leading to any clarifications even to ourselves.
|
Papalet
| |
| | Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
|
evaD\yaa maÜz\yaa cacaa-saU~acaa prIpak kaya Æ eKaVanao saU~Qaar banaUna tÜ idvaaLI AMkat p`isaw kra.
KUp laaMbat raihlaa Aaho ivaYaya.
|
Sayonara
| |
| | Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 6:29 am: |
|
|
(a ivaYayaaXaI saMbaMiQat maaJaM pÜsT naahI pNa trIhI ilaihlyaaiXavaaya rhavat naahI mhNaUna.
kahI kahI maMDLIMnaI baroca laaMbalacak pircCod ilaihlao Aahot pNa sagaLo [MiglaXa naahItr imaMiglaXa
maQyao. (apOkI kuNaalaaca maatRBaaYaot svatÁcao ivacaar vya> krayacaI [cCa hÜt naahI kaMÆ jyaaMcyaakDo
Aa^ifsamaQyao dovanaagarIt ilaihta yaot naahI %yaaMcaI ADcaNa samajaU Xakto. pNa dovanaagarIt ilahayalaa
vaoL laagatÜ hI sababa iktI idvasa caalaNaarÆ ³trI barM hI vaoLocaI sababa doNaarI maMDLI lagaoca lagaoca
pÜsT Taktanaa idsatat.´
dovanaagarI laÜkip`ya ksaM krta yaola (acyaa cacaa- tr sagaLo krtat pNa %yaa AMmalaat kQaI yaoNaarÆ
maa^DÊ tumhIhI (avar kahI A^@Xana Gao} Xakt naahI kaMÆ
|
Giriraj
| |
| | Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
|
maO~oyaIÊsaayaÜ baGa tulaa kaya mhNato Aaho²
|
saayaÜnaaraÊ tuJyaa mau_\yaalaa ( Ana gau_\yaalaa pNa ) jaahIr paizmbaa²
maa^D kaya A^@Xana Gaoitla kI naahI to jaavaudoÊ maI rÜmana maQalaI pÜsT na vaacata [gnaÜr krtܲ hIca
maaJaI A^@Xana²
igaáyaa yaa baIbaIcaa ivaYaya naahI hoÊ pNa laavyaalaavyaa k$ nagasa² caÜmbaDa kuzlaa DDD
|
Aschig
| |
| | Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
|
saayaÜÊ ilaMbauÊ tumhI BB cyaa ivaYayaap`maaNaoca vaagata Aahat Asao naahI ka tumhalaa vaaTtÆ dovanaagarI maQyao ilaihNao ha social law Aaho. tsao na krNaayaa-MnaaÊ %yaaMcyaa mhNaNyaacaa AaXaya samajauna na GaotaÊ kovaL to dovanaagarI maQyao
ilaiht naaiht mhNaunaÊ vaaLIt TakNao iktpt yaÜgya AahoÆ tÜ ek rhetoric p`karat maÜDNaara p`Xna AahoÊ ]<ar Vayacyaa BaanagaDIt pDu naka .
|
|
| मायबोली |
|
| चोखंदळ ग्राहक |
|
| महाराष्ट्र धर्म वाढवावा |
|
| व्यक्तिपासून वल्लीपर्यंत |
|
| पांढर्यावरचे काळे |
|
| गावातल्या गावात |
|
| तंत्रलेल्या मंत्रबनात |
|
| आरोह अवरोह |
|
| शुभंकरोती कल्याणम् |
|
| विखुरलेले मोती |
|
|
|
|