Sirona Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 I have got the feeling that some doctrines in Hinduism (or sanatana-dharma, you know what I mean) discriminate against left-handed people. [in fact, I do not know any religion that does not.] Why is this so? Just because the majority of mankind is right-handed? How does this go along with the idea of non-discrimination? "...Mankind errs here By folly, darkening knowledge. But, for whom That darkness of the soul is chased by light, Splendid and clear shines manifest the Truth As if a Sun of Wisdom sprang to shed Its beams of dawn. Him meditating still, Him seeking, with Him blended, stayed on Him, The souls illuminated take that road Which hath no turning back -- their sins flung off, By strength of faith. [Who will may have this Light; Who hath it sees.] To him who wisely sees, The Brahman with his scrolls and sanctities, The cow, the elephant, the unclean dog, The Outcast gorging dog's meat, are all one." (From somewhere in the Bhagavad-Gita) If no distinction between brahmans and outcasts should be made, doesn't this imply that also the distinction between the left-handed and the right-handed should be dropped? A left-hander is not left-handed by his conscious will. It's because a left-hander's brain functions differently and because they are "programmed" to use the left hand as "primary" hand without even thinking about it. How should it be considered if a left-hander lights a candle or an incense stick with the left hand? Questions ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauracandra Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 One theory would be that the left hand was set aside for hygenic purposes. In India, when a person passes stool, they are to clean themselves with their left hand. Now imagine in the past, or even today, in areas with poor water and cleaning facilities. One way to stop the spread of germs would be to set aside one hand for dirty business. The right hand would remain clean, suitable for eating with (thats why people eat with their right hand, and won't spread disease). Now overtime this likely has taken on certain cultural meanings. For instance, if a person goes to shake hands with his left hand it would be seen as an insult perhaps. Or if you give food, light incense etc.... There is nothing wrong with the left hand in and of itself. It has just taken on characteristics based on its function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote Posted February 1, 2003 Report Share Posted February 1, 2003 In addition, I am remembering 6th grade Latin correctly the word for left handed was "sinister". Alot of the terms had to do with battle. A left handed swordsman is deadly if one is carrying a shield in the left hand. I think the word "sin" was originally an archers term meaning "to miss the mark' and "hell" was shallow or on top of the ground grave for those with no money for buriel. Gives new meaning to the term "living hell". I am not sure though if sin & hell originated from Latin language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 1, 2003 Report Share Posted February 1, 2003 I can see that about the swordsman. You train for fighting a righty and a lefty appears before you, all strategy is confused. But not for them as they train mostly against righties. Same in boxing today. They call lefties unorthodox, and it takes a whole different approach to prevail against them. I have als heard that about the word sin. Which makes sense. A sin could be seen as any action that is directed away from Krishna's pleasure. It misses the mark. I wonder what the phyisological reasons are for left-handedness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirona Posted February 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Yes, sinister does mean left in Latin. As for the physiological reasons, no idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narayanidd Posted March 4, 2003 Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 My dear vaisnavas, P.A.M.H.O. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I agree with Gauracandra. Originally the left hand was considered dirty because, as you stated, the majority of people are right handed. Other than that I don't know of any reason why the stigma was attached to those who are left handed. If it makes you feel any better Arjuna was famous throughout the world for his ability to use both hands while wielding his Gandiva bow! Your servant, Narayani d.d. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirona Posted April 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2003 Left-handedness, once more: In the BG translation that I cling to, in verse 11.33 Krishna addresses Arjuna as "O, lefthander". In other translations I compared this word does not appear. So, my question is whether there's really such a word or one with a double meaning in the Sanskrit text, if it really means "left-hander" and, if true, why Krishna sticks with a lefty if according to ritualist ideas left-handers are "bad" /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted April 9, 2003 Report Share Posted April 9, 2003 The word used in Gita is "savyasachi". This word is used for a person who can shoot arrows even with left hand. Arjuna could should arrows with right hand and also with left hand. The word "left hander" is not accurate translation. When we call somebody a left hander, then what we mean is that he is better at using left hand than right hand. It is not that Arjuna could not shoot with right hand. He could shoot equally well with either hand. It is just that, for many people, it was more difficult to shoot arrows with left hand than with right hand, and therefore, Krsna emphasized that Arjuna could shoot arrows with left hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2003 Report Share Posted April 9, 2003 Avinash is right, the word is savyasaci. So, it depends whose version of the Gita you are reading. In Prabhupada's, 11:33 states: "Therefore get up and prepare to fight. After conquering your enemies you will enjoy a flourishing kingdom. They are already put to death by My arrangement, and you, O Savyasaci, can be but an instrument in the fight." Narayani makes a good point. Arjuna used both hands! I have known some left handed devotees. They just used their right hand as the dirty one and their left hand as their clean one. They could not think of it any other way! lol So, its really not very important, just as long as a hand is picked. Garusundara was also correct, it's about cleanliness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2003 Report Share Posted April 9, 2003 I mean to say Gauracandra is correct. Not Garusundara. Apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2003 Report Share Posted April 9, 2003 I found somewhere in scriptures...If someone knows please shad some light to this, I think usles topic... hare krishna mirza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 The word sinister comes from sinistra, Latin for the left hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.