A Few Glimpses from South Indian History

[Vivek_V]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sri Suraju06

"If there is a reasonable assurance from the powerful communities of the Hindu religion that they will all give up the varna system completely the brahmins’ giving it up will be meaningful."

But is the varna merely based on a naming of castes? Its largely based on culture too which is why caste sqeezed into other religions in India. If we speak of say giving up the namings in the varna system, we still won't prevent a poor man from being ill-treated. We still won't be able to educate the children of gambling, spenthrift. Or bring respect to a low caste because they have trhough generations did only a paritcular job.
People who speak like the varna system is a designation of tickets handed over by brahmins are mistaken.

To destroy the social descrimination anywhere (not just India) equal opportunities should be brought, a message of what constitutes a good life and future for a family should exist and imbibed. That is not hard to enlist, its only hard to make all of society imbibe it.
Till now no group actually has that completely.

But the brahmin-run organizations like of the ranks of the Hindutva like BJP, RSS, Shiv Sena etc, only ruin the image of our community even though they seem to display the "Hindu" image they represent.

To bring this to perspective let me ask: Who made western civilization more respected or influenctial? Is it the white supremacist organizations which went around shouting of their greatness and which still exist in US jails as violent criminals, or is it men of the eras like the Renaissance who layed the foundations of the industrial era? Its the latter. That tells a lot.

IMO first we should be open to learning from anywhere (which brahmins had done which is why they kept up with times), at the same time we have to discern from aspects of our own past and culture by having an identity.

"When your neighbour throws garbage into your garage it is not just his business. Brahminism is a word coined by Britishers and conveniently grabbed by DK. Now it is being used more frequently by the reformists in this forum than even the kazhakamaites."

Well put Suraju.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Sangom

"It is this difference in culture (vedic) and language which made the Tabras different, somehow. The other factors and circumstances which led to the aggravation of the anti-Brahman emotions have been discussed in this forum earlier, perhaps, many times."

No Sangom, it is what was used to attack Tambrams. I can see how different our povs are now. This is exactly what I said. Sangom, I am at this point cautious to not address you in a way that will be considered disrespective.

But I don't feel you understand the power of rhetoric. It would have been possible for any polity to (factually or fictionally) trace the origins of even an NB upper caste to say that of N.Indian groups, point to their shabby treatment of Tamil dalits and start a Tamil dalit agitation against them. But doing that is not morally right according to me, nor does it speak in entireity of that upper NB castes role in tamil society.

TBs are potrayed as nativity haters merely because they have a part Sanskrit legacy. But history itself will attest their love for the tamil language itself, not to mention, music and the pride they have in being Tamilians.

"My opinion is that the more we try to discuss this issue, viz., anti-brahman riots, anti-brahman politics of EVR/DK/DMK and trying to prove that they (EVR/DK/DMK) were morally wrong, that the brahmans were not to be blamed, that even if brahmans had some faults, anyone trying to justify the DK/DMK/EVR stand is not straightforward and honest, etc., the less we will convince the Tamil society and the less helpful it will be of any help for the future of tabras; on the contrary, we will be alienating ourselves more and more from the tamil society at large which can only bring adverse results to us as time passes."

Yes, the EVR/DK/DMK were wrong indeed. This is exactly what I meant when I said that you don't have to disrespect yourself to respect others. If you are supporting the DK/EVR/DMK because you think Tambrams will only be accepted if they accept the anti-brahmin rhetoric you are mistaken. You will continued to be hated, and your acceptance of that will mount to only saying that you (through guilt) accept such a stance.

Sri Sangom, please let me know one thing: Is this to you an opinion between accepting the anti-brahmin rhetoric by hating ourselves, our legacy on one hand; and being alienated as tamilians on the other hand? Do you feel a TB has to have one of these fates ultimately?

Regards,
Vivek

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Nara - Who planted the seed?

"I agree that the notion that TBs are outsiders is a poisonous seed, but it is the TBs themselves who planted this seed. "

And is that why they hold Tamil so closely to their hearts? When you said TBs hold Tamil in contempt, I fail to see where you got that from when you yourself accepted that they had indeed contributed to the growth of Tamil too.

This seed of "aryan" foreigners was not by widest stretch used by brahmins anytime in the past. It was used by the British, after which it did become universally accepted. DK/DMK used it in their political propaganda against the brahmins after that. Past this point if certain brahmins believed it, it hardly makes them who "planted this seed".

I wouldn't have been able to argue that TBs loved tamil if I hadn't first hand witness of my mother's self-professed love for the language. Its (pleasantly) surprising that we have continued to call ourselves tamilians even after all this "outisder poisonous seed planting" by others in recent political propganda.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[kkumar29]

Hi Vivek,

You quoted your mother's self professed love for the language. It did not change. Outside noises (the propaganda by the dravida parties) could not shake her love for that language. Don't wait for approval from some unknown person/persons to say that tambrahms are great. If you know you are, you don't need anyone's approval. You carry on with your good work

K. Kumar.

 

[kunjuppu]

Shri Kumar,

Thank you for your encouraging words. My earlier decision to present my views and now,to stop writing more and to withdraw from this discussion, both arose out of my good will for our community. I felt in the beginning that there would be many people who would be benefitted by an impartial knowledge of our past, our shortcomings, blunders committed by us as a community, etc., and try to ponder over these things calmly and then decide whether there is any need to change our individual outlook as also that of the community as a whole. Unfortunately, I find that my pov gets support from a few but for each of the supporters there are others who feel slighted and take it upon themselves as a sacred duty to defend our actions, mistakes etc., as if it is a noble task. In the process much heat is generated, more attacks are made on EVR/DK/DMK etc., on the one hand, and the NB upper castes on the other, without realizing that that is not the purpose of our discussion.

People here tend to forget that even this forum is not an exclusive and secret world of tabras only, and that in a democracy it is the numbers which count. I personally will like to take what is relevant to us tabras in the whole past, instead of finding fault with other numerically majority and, therefore, more powerful groups in a democratic set up. Defending our past here is of no use unless it can produce some tangible results in elections.

There is a proverb in Malayalam to the effect that a goat should not aspire for eating as much food as the elephant eats. In the same way comparing NBFCs or DK/DMK is mere idle talk, IMHO. If we are pragmatic we must learn the lessons from the past and try to shape our future for better results. If my posts help in this I have no objection to continue.

sangom,

you are so right. the community is in hotwater. but how can it improve and get out of the sticky situation, if any introspection is viewed as dhuvesham?

i find folks to be so one tracked, that everything has to be either us or them. those days are gone 50 years or more ago. either we integrate and learn to accommodate or we fall wayside.

sangom, those who do not like your type of writing, have really no options or solutions. they just harp on the same anti brahmin theme, denounce periyar and beat their breasts. what do these expect? for 96% of tamil community to fall at their feet, apologize, hand over plum college seats and government jobs and sing praises?

 

[kkumar29]

sangom,
sangom, those who do not like your type of writing, have really no options or solutions. they just harp on the same anti brahmin theme, denounce periyar and beat their breasts. what do these expect? for 96% of tamil community to fall at their feet, apologize, hand over plum college seats and government jobs and sing praises?

K.Kumar

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

When our reformists here, who rely on external academic interpretations that are suitable to them, specially from the West or people affiliated to the West--instead of internal textual evidences and native spiritual teaching,--are challenged for proof of what they seek to establish in the name of reformation, they do two things: quote the statements of the opposing parties out of context; and sulk under the pretext that their genunine intentions are not accepted, so let the majority who favour tradition meet the fate that awaits (according to them).

shrI Sangom in his posts no.290 and 298 addressed to K.Kumar seems to be doing this exactly. Let me explain:

• shrI Sangom is one who always gives and seeks textual evidences.

We have seen him quote, for example, from the VRShAkapi sUkta in the Rig Veda here to suggest that the Vedas cannot be apauruSheya:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-traditions/5079-atharva-veda-samhita.html#post62671

And then we know about his quote from the shArdha mantras to suggest that a Tambram cannot be sure of the brahminic origins in his family lineage, here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/rituals-ceremonies-pujas/5785-shraddha-mantram.html#post68229

I do not readily remember anything that he might have quoted from Tamizh Sangham texts.

• He has quoted me in post no.288 and 290, giving a wrong emphasis to my statement. Here is my text with his emphasis in italics and my emphasis in bold:

There are ample evidences--and I have already quoted many--that neither the brahimns considered themselves, nor the public nor the rulers considered them, to be apart from the Tamizh society, although the brahmins were a minority and their Vedic culture and language--not religion--was different from the common culture of the society. It should be noted that among the Sangham poets, as many as 30 were brahmins, in evidence of their fluency in the language, besides in Sanskrit.

‣ My opinion is that brahmins from the earliest times in India and Tamizhaham, have always been a minority community, purusing their svadharma more as vaidika--vedic brahmins and less as laukika--worldly brahmnins. Although brahmins have been kings, taken part in battles, worked as the king's messengers, counsels and ministers, possibly even crossed the seas during king VikramAditya's times, the number of brahmins who prominently figure in Sanskrit and Hindu texts vis-a-vis those of other varNas are far less, indicating that they were natives in minority.

‣ Since Sanskrit was used less by the other three varNas of the public, and the yajnas, rituals and pujas of the brahmins have always been different from public worship, the brahmin culture has been distinct from the public culture.

‣ This NEVER MEANT in ancient times that brahmins lived in isolation with no interaction with other communities. I have already quoted TolkAppiyam defining the four varNas and three classes of the society of the Sangham times, and given an example of brahmins conducting their vedic rituals right in the heart of the city, as mentioned in the epic Perungkathai here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-15.html#post71555

‣ If brahmins had exclusive residential areas called agrahAram now, and andhaNpADi or andhaNachEri during the Sangham times, so did the other communities too: the King and his entourage lived in palaces and residential areas inside the palace compound, the merchant class had their own streets with posh houses, and the poor lived in their huts in chEris outside the town or city where the crop fields and forests were located, eating tEN--honey, tinaimAvu--millet flour, and mAnkari--deer-meat. So, what is wrong with brahmins living in their exclusive streets?

‣ The plain fact is that brahmins, because they sustained the Vedic religion and culture--which were the roots of the Tamizh religion and culture, were accorded celebrity status in society, along with the kShatriyas for their dharma of governance, in ancient times of Tamizh history, That celebrity is no longer accorded now, perhaps for the reason that it was taken advantage of in the recent past, nor do we brahmins as a communtiy seek such celebrity today.

• When I ask shrI Sangom proof in post no.286, from the Tamizh classical texts for his statements about the exclusivity of Tamizhs in language, social structure and religion, he laments in posts no.290 and 298 that his genunine intentions of reform by shedding our brahmin identity only meet with emotional reactions, so it is better to withdraw from the discussion.

I don't insist or expect shrI Sangom to provide the proof I have called for. I shall try to give evidences to the contrary in the 'Religion and culture of our Tamizh ancestors' thread at:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-traditions/6044-religion-culture-our-tamizh-ancestors.html

I only want our reformers to understand that our reformation cannot come at the cost of shedding our identity. When people who are nAdArs and nAiDus retain their communal identity with endogamous marriages even when they are converted to Christianity, why should we shed our brahmin identity?

 

[sangom]

sangom,

you are so right. the community is in hotwater. but how can it improve and get out of the sticky situation, if any introspection is viewed as dhuvesham?

i find folks to be so one tracked, that everything has to be either us or them. those days are gone 50 years or more ago. either we integrate and learn to accommodate or we fall wayside.

sangom, those who do not like your type of writing, have really no options or solutions. they just harp on the same anti brahmin theme, denounce periyar and beat their breasts. what do these expect? for 96% of tamil community to fall at their feet, apologize, hand over plum college seats and government jobs and sing praises?

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

Your language command is so good that you have put it so nicely!

My mistake was that my language was not suited for this purpose and did not reach some people properly; now I realize it. People who claim that TBs were unlawfully driven out by mere anti-brahman rhetoric (which, I think means, inter alia, "Using language effectively to please or persuade") do not perhaps see that as a less than 5 percent minuscule group, brahmans anywhere in India had lost their high positions of yore, once democracy based on universal suffrage knocked at the doors. The TB community leaders of that time most probably failed to recognize the true import of the developments taking place and stuck to their traditional feelings of superiority and invincibility, nurtured by upbringing and habit; they did not realize that they were in the process, alienating and displeasing the future ruling groups.

What DK/EVR/DMK did was, in my opinion, the venting of dislike and hatred towards Brahmans which had accumulated in the non-Brahman minds for centuries or millenia, perhaps. To say everything in the caste system was very excellent and eclectic before the British came to power in T.Nadu is just trying to shift all the blame on to the British.

In my view the best course for TBs today will be to first understand and accept unreservedly that we became the bete noire of all other groups in T. Nadu and that it was not merely because they were all ranged against us with the sole ulterior motive of grabbing the public/government offices which TBs had been cornering and enjoying for about 100 years at the maximum. This may look unacceptable to many and "demeaning" our own community to some others, but other castes within hindus must have felt the same way (demeaning existence) for ages because the power equations were very different then. That we must recognize.

Lastly, political power just as the power of the monarchy in those days, is the fact to be reckoned with today. The future of any small group like that of the TBs lies not in challenging, accusing, and berating the centres of power but in being successful in bridging the gaps in povs and creating an amicable working relationship with those powers. This was what made Brahmans very powerful and successful down the ages and this is the only way for the future, unless we are intent upon digging our own graves for the sake of vanity.

 

[sangom]

namaste everyone.

• He has quoted me in post no.288 and 290, giving a wrong emphasis to my statement. Here is my text with his emphasis in italics and my emphasis in bold:

There are ample evidences--and I have already quoted many--that neither the brahimns considered themselves, nor the public nor the rulers considered them, to be apart from the Tamizh society, although the brahmins were a minority and their Vedic culture and language--not religion--was different from the common culture of the society. It should be noted that among the Sangham poets, as many as 30 were brahmins, in evidence of their fluency in the language, besides in Sanskrit.

‣ My opinion is that brahmins from the earliest times in India and Tamizhaham, have always been a minority community, purusing their svadharma more as vaidika--vedic brahmins and less as laukika--worldly brahmnins. Although brahmins have been kings, taken part in battles, worked as the king's messengers, counsels and ministers, possibly even crossed the seas during king VikramAditya's times, the number of brahmins who prominently figure in Sanskrit and Hindu texts vis-a-vis those of other varNas are far less, indicating that they were natives in minority.

Dear Shri Saidevo,

First let me reiterate that my objection was to your saying that your knowledge of Sangam literature is limited and then asking me, therefore, to produce evidence/s in support of my view and adding that only Tamil and sanskrit indigenous texts should be quoted. That to me is unfair even now.

You now bring in Brahmans from outside Tamizhakam whereas our point of discussion is about Tamizh Brahmans and their characteristics. So, this is diverting the arguments. And evidence is required on whether the public considered the TBs to be apart from the Tamizh society.

‣ Since Sanskrit was used less by the other three varNas of the public, and the yajnas, rituals and pujas of the brahmins have always been different from public worship, the brahmin culture has been distinct from the public culture.

‣ This NEVER MEANT in ancient times that brahmins lived in isolation with no interaction with other communities. I have already quoted TolkAppiyam defining the four varNas and three classes of the society of the Sangham times, and given an example of brahmins conducting their vedic rituals right in the heart of the city, as mentioned in the epic Perungkathai here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-15.html#post71555

You admit that Brahmans used a different language for their rituals and poojas, their culture has been distinct from that of the public. This is what I also said. But you assert that there was no perception in the public 's mind that the TBs were somehow different from them; the mere fact that they could perform vedic rituals in the heart of the city, shows nothing more than tolerance of the people to different modes of worship.

‣ If brahmins had exclusive residential areas called agrahAram now, and andhaNpADi or andhaNachEri during the Sangham times, so did the other communities too: the King and his entourage lived in palaces and residential areas inside the palace compound, the merchant class had their own streets with posh houses, and the poor lived in their huts in chEris outside the town or city where the crop fields and forests were located, eating tEN--honey, tinaimAvu--millet flour, and mAnkari--deer-meat. So, what is wrong with brahmins living in their exclusive streets?

But do we find distinct terms to denote the merchant classes' areas as 'vaNikar cheri' etc?

‣ The plain fact is that brahmins, because they sustained the Vedic religion and culture--which were the roots of the Tamizh religion and culture, were accorded celebrity status in society, along with the kShatriyas for their dharma of governance, in ancient times of Tamizh history, That celebrity is no longer accorded now, perhaps for the reason that it was taken advantage of in the recent past, nor do we brahmins as a communtiy seek such celebrity today.

I do not know how you make an assertion that "the Vedic religion and culture--which were the roots of the Tamizh religion and culture,"; is it possible for you to support this statement with adequate evidences, even from western or west-affiliated authors?

• When I ask shrI Sangom proof in post no.286, from the Tamizh classical texts for his statements about the exclusivity of Tamizhs in language, social structure and religion, he laments in posts no.290 and 298 that his genunine intentions of reform by shedding our brahmin identity only meet with emotional reactions, so it is better to withdraw from the discussion.

Shri saidevo, you try to equate any pov which differs from yours as "reform" "shedding our brahman identity" etc. Now kindly ponder whether you are living a brahman way of life just the same way your grandfather or great grandfather might have lived? I am sure you are not and you can't also. What does this mean? That you have reformed, or, viewed in another angle, you have degenerated as a brahman (which is what you probably intend to convey when you use the word 'reform' together with 'shedding the brahman identity', I suspect. Thus, if your mind permits an impartial analysis, all of us are 'reforming' (or getting degraded) all the while, continually. But just as I said in another post, it is like you and I sitting in a moving vehicle and my saying "we are moving" whereas you are very firm in your view that you are not moving and sitting firm (within the moving vehicle). As to "shedding brahman identity" I don't think anything was discussed in this thread at least. What was and is, being discussed is what should be the future course for this community, what should be our appraisal about our past and also our future attitudes towards and pronouncements about, the rest of the Tamizh population.

I don't insist or expect shrI Sangom to provide the proof I have called for. I shall try to give evidences to the contrary in the 'Religion and culture of our Tamizh ancestors' thread at:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-traditions/6044-religion-culture-our-tamizh-ancestors.html

This is welcome.

I only want our reformers to understand that our reformation cannot come at the cost of shedding our identity. When people who are nAdArs and nAiDus retain their communal identity with endogamous marriages even when they are converted to Christianity, why should we shed our brahmin identity?

As I said above, nobody is talking about 'shedding of identity'.

But, as a general principle, we should discard, once and for all this rhetoric of comparison with the more powerful castes, IMO, for our own well-being. Kindly see my post # 298 where I have given a Malayalam proverb; a mouse (I am replacing 'goat' with'mouse' intentionally, to bring the comparison little more emphatically.) should not aspire to eat what all an elephant eats. Similarly, this empty, senseless boast of 'if Nadars, Naidus' can do this, this, why not we? is sure to lead to disastrous results only.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sangom.

I am disappointed with your reply in post no.309. Here is how:

First let me reiterate that my objection was to your saying that your knowledge of Sangam literature is limited and then asking me, therefore, to produce evidence/s in support of my view and adding that only Tamil and sanskrit indigenous texts should be quoted. That to me is unfair even now.

• Do you mean to say that because my knowledge of Sangham literature is limited and yours probably extensive, I may not be able to understand/appreciate any textual evidences that you might provide?

• You are known here to be well-versed in Sanskrit. Would that mean that you have read the entire gamut of Sanskrit texts from the Vedas to the secular literature? Or would you say of yourself that your knowledge of Sanskrit texts is limited?

• When you say that the Tamizh people of the Sangham period in history had their own religion, culture and social structure, which were not at all related to those of the Vedas and SmRtis, should it not be fair that you should find evidences to this effect primarily in the Tamizh indigenous texts rather than quote current academic opinion?

• Even if you say that the academic opinion is well-researched, then that opinion in turn should be based on textual and other internal evidences, right? If that is so, why can't you provide examples from indigenous Tamizh texts to prove your point?

• By evading thus about any proof in the texts, don't you think that the members can assume that either you are not inclined to go into the texts or are indifferent to what they say? In what way would this evasion be fair to your stand about the ancient Tamizh soecity?

• Since we Hindus in the past had never been in the habit of documenting our history, all that we know of our history, culture, religion and civilization is only from the religious and literary texts, right? In that case, is there not every possibility that our ancient Tamizhs would certainly have recorded it in their texts if they considered their religion, culture and social structure to be different from that of the Vedic religion? Then what is the problem for you to search for such examples and highlight them, just as you are doing in the case of Sanskrit texts, instead of just voicing your own and current academic opinions?

The plain fact is, shrI Sangham, that you either do not or cannot find adequate textual evidences in the indigenous Tamizh texts to support your view, which could be the reason for your evasion.

All the negative propaganda about the Tamizhs being different, superior, mighty and having nothing to do with the Vedic religion, culture and civilization of India that is BhArat, is of recent origin, started by the Europeans for their hidden agendas to divide and rule the country, destroy the religion, culture and civilization just as they destroyed the wealth and indigenous educational system, and make India a Christian nation.

That evil propaganda still subsists, as the poison of separation and hatred has been imbibed with relish by our politicians to further their vested interests, and they spread it under the label of nectar at the grassroot levels.

You now bring in Brahmans from outside Tamizhakam whereas our point of discussion is about Tamizh Brahmans and their characteristics. So, this is diverting the arguments. And evidence is required on whether the public considered the TBs to be apart from the Tamizh society.

• I only said that IMO, brahmins have always been a minority community both in Tamizhaham and in India. In what way does it amount to 'bringing in brahmins from outside' and 'diverting the arguments'?

• I don't understand the last sentence in the above quote. I never said that the public considered ******* to be apart in ancient times of Tamizh history, so why should I provide evidence? I have already provided evidence from Perungkathai about brahmins performing their vedic rituals right in the heart of the city! Only you need to provide evidence if you say that the Tamizhs have always considered ******* to be separate.

You admit that Brahmans used a different language for their rituals and poojas, their culture has been distinct from that of the public. This is what I also said. But you assert that there was no perception in the public 's mind that the TBs were somehow different from them; the mere fact that they could perform vedic rituals in the heart of the city, shows nothing more than tolerance of the people to different modes of worship.

• shrI Sangom, fortunately in those days, as it is today with worship in temples, the King did not enforce the brahmins to use only Tamizh for their Vedic rituals! Unlike today's politicians, the Tamizhs of those days were not language chauvinists. The city scene I have quoted in Perugkathai involves merchants from other countries, which means that at least some of the Tamizh merchants and security guards would have been familiar with the foreign languages of those times.

• You are wrong to say that it was just tolerance among the public for the Sanskrit-based worship of the brahmins. For your information, there was a Tamizh king by name PerunaRkiLLi who performed the rAjasUya yajna, so he was known by the title 'rAjasUyam vETTa PerunaRkiLLi'. Another king, by name Peruvazhudhi, performed many yanjas, and came to be known with the title 'palyAgasAlai mudukuDumi Peruvazhudhi'.

Perunarkilli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purananuru- Sangam Literary Work of India

But do we find distinct terms to denote the merchant classes' areas as 'vaNikar cheri' etc?

• The term 'chEri' did not have the meaning 'slum' then as it has today. The term was used to refer to a town, village, hamlet (don't you find the name chEri in some of the village names in TamizhnADu today?), street as well as residential quarters.
Tamil lexicon

• The very fact that the residential quarters of brahmins and the poor had the suffix chEri indicates social intimacy to me.

• As to your question about if they had a 'vaNikar cheri', instead using tactics of taunting and sarcasm, why don't you look up the dictionary and the Tamizh library here?
Tamil Lexicon
Library Details - TVU

There was, however, a 'dEsikach chEri' housing the foreign traders. Look up the Perungkathai quote I have given.

I do not know how you make an assertion that "the Vedic religion and culture--which were the roots of the Tamizh religion and culture,"; is it possible for you to support this statement with adequate evidences, even from western or west-affiliated authors?

• Since you stated first about a distinct religion, culture and social structure of ancient Tamizhs, the onus of proof is on you, shrI Sangom. I hope you will make some attempt using the Libray link I have given above.

I shall take up your queries about maintaining identity in another post, as this post had already become long.

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Sangom - No need to disrespect your TB identity to work on an "amicable working relationship"

"What DK/EVR/DMK did was, in my opinion, the venting of dislike and hatred towards Brahmans which had accumulated in the non-Brahman minds for centuries or millenia, perhaps."

"Millenia, perhaps"? No, less than a few centuries.

It would have been impossible for brahmins to gain respect by merely claiming it. Brahmins actually played an important role in early society, as men of learning and discipline. Respect followed. When they stopped being an inspiration, it naturally declined.

The hatred however, has everything to do with DK's propaganda. Propaganda could have been spread over to any upper caste group citing a partial negative part of their legacy. It would have been successful, but still not justified. And still not worthy of support from those speaking of a progressive society. That is exactly why it matters whether or not you support the DK.

DK created a propaganda and based that division on the part Sanskrit-reciting culture. Suddenly, we are outsiders to tamil society, we are "aryans", suddenly we are the source of everything evil in the imagined tamilain utopia, which DK envisions to have been the perfect society had we not existed in it.

You here, continue to support that DK by saying that their stance was justified. Tamil polity, like polity anywhere in India, cares two hoots about progressive society or meritocracy. It only uses a chance to play an identity card to gain power.

"Lastly, political power just as the power of the monarchy in those days, is the fact to be reckoned with today."

Just because something exists in power, does it mean we necessarily agree with it Sangom?

" The TB community leaders of that time most probably failed to recognize the true import of the developments taking place and stuck to their traditional feelings of superiority and invincibility, nurtured by upbringing and habit; they did not realize that they were in the process, alienating and displeasing the future ruling groups."

Community leaders are one, a community (itself) is another. Which brahmin leaders harboured feelings of "supriority and invicibility"? Some of the men who took India to the modern era where brahmins.

Propaganda is indeed persuasive language, but nothing stops it from lead a society to a non-progrssive way. Just because its persuasive language are you telling me that Hitler was okay in pursuading German population to attack Jews?

DK didn't see the actual reasons for which brahmins were influential. The fact that they regarded a discipline of life and education was irrelevant to DK because to say anything good of the brahmins, would pain the DK which wanted to regard the brahmins as the sole evil that ruined the utopian society of the tamilians. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the view many others hold, oblivious of actual history.

"To say everything in the caste system was very excellent and eclectic before the British came to power in T.Nadu is just trying to shift all the blame on to the British."

Nobody shifted blame on the British for casteism. The idea of aryans and dravidians of course, was their propaganda which the DMK used.

"The future of any small group like that of the TBs lies not in challenging, accusing, and berating the centres of power but in being successful in bridging the gaps in povs and creating an amicable working relationship with those powers."

Small or big, a group should assert its identity. You are wrong if you think the DK will somehow change its ficticious claim of "aryan brahmins invading utopian tamil society". We need to challenge and attack the evil in our culture instead of waiting for a polity like DK to use it as a reason to justify attacking us.

We don't have to disrespect our identity or claim it to be only based on casteism and evil, merely because a ruling polity likes to hear that. You seem to be asking TBs to nod at the DK rhetoric because we are small in numbers and need to have an "amicable working relationship".

A real amicable working solution is done only by imbibing the ideals of actually forms a progressive society, not by saying that its okay to hate TBs or a hate community.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Kunjuppu

"sangom, those who do not like your type of writing, have really no options or solutions. they just harp on the same anti brahmin theme, denounce periyar and beat their breasts. what do these expect? for 96% of tamil community to fall at their feet, apologize, hand over plum college seats and government jobs and sing praises?"

Nobody is asking to "hand over" college seats, or government jobs. Bring in a fair method based on meritocracy. EVR/DK couldn't once stop to say that brahmins came in those positions they did because of their regard for education. Period. We need to know when we are at fault and when we needn't feel that way. Casteism is wrong - be it practiced by anyone and the blame comes on that community alone.

Stop propaganda on a community. You clearly have a polity that spreads a message to hate a community. And then we go to speak of progressiveness. Brahmins do rituals in Sanskrit, so they hate Tamil - that was the sort of reasoning we saw from Sri Nara.

I mean, what exactly is a progressive society for TN? Is it a society in which a person born into a brahmin family is forced to take the ultimatum of either hating his identity, or not being regarded a tamilian? Please let me know your pov on that question Kunjuppu.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[KRS]

I was out of town yesterday, and today I find Sri Vivek-v-Ji back. I did ban him permanently from the Forum, but there seems to be a glitch in the s/w. I have brought this to Sri Praveen Ji's notice.

In the meanwhile I thought about letting Sri vivek-v Ji to continue. But he still has posted the same sentence that got him banned.

Sri vivek-v ji, if you post again in this forum, your posts will be deleted, till we fix the s/w, which, when when fixed will not allow you to post.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sangom]

namaste shrI Sangom.

I am disappointed with your reply in post no.309. Here is how:


• Do you mean to say that because my knowledge of Sangham literature is limited and yours probably extensive, I may not be able to understand/appreciate any textual evidences that you might provide?

Dear Shri Saidevo,

I never said anything about my knowledge of Tamil literature or the lack of it. It was your good self only that siad - I thought it was in right earnest - that your knowledge of Tamil literature was limited. If so I think it is not right on your part to challenge me to produce evidence - that too subject to stipulations laid down by you.
I never said that your knowledge of Tamil is bad or inadequate. Such twisting can only be said as eminently avoidable on your part.

• You are known here to be well-versed in Sanskrit. Would that mean that you have read the entire gamut of Sanskrit texts from the Vedas to the secular literature? Or would you say of yourself that your knowledge of Sanskrit texts is limited?

Though I will not say that my knowledge of sanskrit is complete and will readily admit that it is poor, I will not make it an excuse from myself providing evidence when I refute someone else's argument and will not instead ask him to first prove his pov with supporting evidence. If this simple rule is not acceptable to you, then I don't know how we can discuss further.

• When you say that the Tamizh people of the Sangham period in history had their own religion, culture and social structure, which were not at all related to those of the Vedas and SmRtis, should it not be fair that you should find evidences to this effect primarily in the Tamizh indigenous texts rather than quote current academic opinion?

I must have material to back up my point, yes. But there is no rule to circumscribe it to tamizh indigenous texts, nor for me to provide such evidence as I may have in the very first instance itself. As and when someone argues against my pov with supporting evidence/s I have to provide my supporting material.

• Even if you say that the academic opinion is well-researched, then that opinion in turn should be based on textual and other internal evidences, right? If that is so, why can't you provide examples from indigenous Tamizh texts to prove your point?

The first point is well taken. But the difficulty is that the relevant Tamizh verses are not always given and I do not have a collection of Tamizh sangam literature with me.

• By evading thus about any proof in the texts, don't you think that the members can assume that either you are not inclined to go into the texts or are indifferent to what they say? In what way would this evasion be fair to your stand about the ancient Tamizh soecity?

I am not evading but only insisting that i must be asked after you first provide your supporting evidences in controverting my observations. What conclusions members come to is left to their judgment.

• Since we Hindus in the past had never been in the habit of documenting our history, all that we know of our history, culture, religion and civilization is only from the religious and literary texts, right? In that case, is there not every possibility that our ancient Tamizhs would certainly have recorded it in their texts if they considered their religion, culture and social structure to be different from that of the Vedic religion? Then what is the problem for you to search for such examples and highlight them, just as you are doing in the case of Sanskrit texts, instead of just voicing your own and current academic opinions?

The plain fact is, shrI Sangham, that you either do not or cannot find adequate textual evidences in the indigenous Tamizh texts to support your view, which could be the reason for your evasion.

All the negative propaganda about the Tamizhs being different, superior, mighty and having nothing to do with the Vedic religion, culture and civilization of India that is BhArat, is of recent origin, started by the Europeans for their hidden agendas to divide and rule the country, destroy the religion, culture and civilization just as they destroyed the wealth and indigenous educational system, and make India a Christian nation.

That evil propaganda still subsists, as the poison of separation and hatred has been imbibed with relish by our politicians to further their vested interests, and they spread it under the label of nectar at the grassroot levels.

Shri Saidevo, you seem to be making conclusions rather too fast. First give the evidences to support your views, wait and then see, before exulting.

• I only said that IMO, brahmins have always been a minority community both in Tamizhaham and in India. In what way does it amount to 'bringing in brahmins from outside' and 'diverting the arguments'?

You did not stop with mere minority position; and even that has no relevance here. You started bracketing what all the brahmins of north India did as if to apply it to south Indian brahmans also.

• I don't understand the last sentence in the above quote. I never said that the public considered ******* to be apart in ancient times of Tamizh history, so why should I provide evidence? I have already provided evidence from Perungkathai about brahmins performing their vedic rituals right in the heart of the city! Only you need to provide evidence if you say that the Tamizhs have always considered ******* to be separate.

The point is that you made the statement that "nor the public nor the rulers considered them, to be apart from the Tamizh society" and I said that evidence is required to support your claim that the public did not consider the tamizh brahmans to be apart frpm the Tamizh society. Now you are turning the onus on me.

• shrI Sangom, fortunately in those days, as it is today with worship in temples, the King did not enforce the brahmins to use only Tamizh for their Vedic rituals! Unlike today's politicians, the Tamizhs of those days were not language chauvinists. The city scene I have quoted in Perugkathai involves merchants from other countries, which means that at least some of the Tamizh merchants and security guards would have been familiar with the foreign languages of those times.

• You are wrong to say that it was just tolerance among the public for the Sanskrit-based worship of the brahmins. For your information, there was a Tamizh king by name PerunaRkiLLi who performed the rAjasUya yajna, so he was known by the title 'rAjasUyam vETTa PerunaRkiLLi'. Another king, by name Peruvazhudhi, performed many yanjas, and came to be known with the title 'palyAgasAlai mudukuDumi Peruvazhudhi'.

Perunarkilli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purananuru- Sangam Literary Work of India

Just because the TBs could perform vedic rituals in public places or temples in sanskrit does not automatically mean that the common folks had great appreciation for those things. They could have just tolerated it because the TBs had the king on their side.

• The term 'chEri' did not have the meaning 'slum' then as it has today. The term was used to refer to a town, village, hamlet (don't you find the name chEri in some of the village names in TamizhnADu today?), street as well as residential quarters.
Tamil lexicon

• The very fact that the residential quarters of brahmins and the poor had the suffix chEri indicates social intimacy to me.

Is it not possible that the term cheri underwent a change in meaning as time passed and then the brahmans opted for agraharam or graamam, instead of cheri which was demeaning to them? In any case how the mere use of the term can be taken to mean that there was social intimacy?

• As to your question about if they had a 'vaNikar cheri', instead using tactics of taunting and sarcasm, why don't you look up the dictionary and the Tamizh library here?
Tamil Lexicon
Library Details - TVU

There was, however, a 'dEsikach chEri' housing the foreign traders. Look up the Perungkathai quote I have given.

• Since you stated first about a distinct religion, culture and social structure of ancient Tamizhs, the onus of proof is on you, shrI Sangom. I hope you will make some attempt using the Libray link I have given above.

I shall take up your queries about maintaining identity in another post, as this post had already become long.

I differ. In this forum it is the person who refutes the first statement who has to produce supporting evidence.

I have a problem with fonts in looking some of the sites you gave. So bear with me. In the meanwhile kindly see this.

 

[ShivKC]

Sri Kunjuppu

"sangom, those who do not like your type of writing, have really no options or solutions. they just harp on the same anti brahmin theme, denounce periyar and beat their breasts. what do these expect? for 96% of tamil community to fall at their feet, apologize, hand over plum college seats and government jobs and sing praises?"

Nobody is asking to "hand over" college seats, or government jobs. Bring in a fair method based on meritocracy. EVR/DK couldn't once stop to say that brahmins came in those positions they did because of their regard for education. Period. We need to know when we are at fault and when we needn't feel that way. Casteism is wrong - be it practiced by anyone and the blame comes on that community alone.

Stop propaganda on a community. You clearly have a polity that spreads a message to hate a community. And then we go to speak of progressiveness. Brahmins do rituals in Sanskrit, so they hate Tamil - that was the sort of reasoning we saw from Sri Nara.

I mean, what exactly is a progressive society for TN? Is it a society in which a person born into a brahmin family is forced to take the ultimatum of either hating his identity, or not being regarded a tamilian? Please let me know your pov on that question Kunjuppu.

Regards,
Vivek.

sh.KRS, I feel you could have handled this in a better way, than banning sh.vivek. This is not a primary school right.

Before sharing my thoughts here, upon your pending question/warning/clarification seeking, I think, I can confidently say, that I opposed this kind of banning, come what, who he is.

I off late sympathized for sh.RVR's exis, though Im poles apart from him. I appealed from sh.kunjuppu's emotional exist, and appealed him to be back, though i could only agree 50% with him, and I vehemently opposed sh.Nara's stage whispered exit (inspite of him pricking me, many a times) , Im very much clear that people should not be put to gullotine

And sh.Vivek has not done so bad here, when compared to smt.HH or sh.naran (pls go through the old posts)..

but dont forget, you are using the Logo or intagible asset called TamizhBrahmins not - CNET. and your praise or seeking permission from praveen only tells me, Praveen.com is better than Spokane Real Estate, Spokane Homes for Sale, Boise Real Estate, Boise Homes, Tri-Cities Real Estate, Lewiston Real Estate, Moses Lake Real Estate, Coeur d'Alene Real Estate, Idaho, Washington . t,Sir, pls dont forget, while using such broad domain names, you are tend to be seen as carrying the logo of tamizhbrahmin in your forehead, not a NB or atheist. sad, prop. right laws are not there to cover TB's now.


at the end, your decision on banning sh.vivek only pains me..

anyway, I have a pending repsonse to you against your alert message.. give me some time, I will respond back, not gonna run away.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI KRS.

One thing I noticed with the posts of our reformists here--sarvashrI Sangom, Nara and Kunjuppu is that they look as young as Vivek in their posts, giving no indication of seniority in their age and membership in the tenor or diction of their posts! So, IMO, Vivek in his immature enthusiasm which is typical of the youth today, might not have given the required deference to them. Further, as I suggested in post 247, Vivek meant righteousness/fairness in using the word morality. If shrI Sangom took a different meaning and felt really hurt, he could have taken up with Vivek either in the forum or by PM.

I also support ShivKC's views in post no.315 in the matter. Vivek has a refreshingly new point of view and a knack of exposing errors and fallacies, so IMO it would not be wise to silence the voice of such a person, especially when you supported (I think) Partha for forceful expression of his traditional outlook sometime back. And you always have the choice of editing posts that are reported to you.

I was out of town yesterday, and today I find Sri Vivek-v-Ji back. I did ban him permanently from the Forum, but there seems to be a glitch in the s/w. I have brought this to Sri Praveen Ji's notice.

In the meanwhile I thought about letting Sri vivek-v Ji to continue. But he still has posted the same sentence that got him banned.

Sri vivek-v ji, if you post again in this forum, your posts will be deleted, till we fix the s/w, which, when when fixed will not allow you to post.

Regards,
KRS

 

[kunjuppu]

saiddevo,

the beauty of internet forums, as far as i am concerned is that there need be no deference based on age, caste, creed, gender, position in life or status.

whatever may be vivek's issues with KRS, may i please recommend not to bring the conept of 'deference' into these discussions. ofcourse, absence of deference, should not be read as affirmation of disrespect. i think THAT is the issue here. i may be wrong ofcourse!

thank you.

 

[KRS]

Definition of Moral Bankruptcy: moral bankruptcy
Part of Speech: n
Definition: the state of being devoid of morality and ethics, used esp. for business and political entities
Example: A complete lack of morals is moral bankruptcy.

Sri Vivek-v Ji could have used the words 'righteousness/fairness' in his description of Sri Sangom Ji's character. Can not just throw around words, without understanding the meaning of the words used, especially several times after several warnings were issued.

Lack of reverence is never a problem here. Personal attacks are, IRRESPECTIVE of who it is coming from, and Moderation henceforth will be applied on a timely basis.

Moderation is final. This Forum is closed for any further discussions about Sri Vivek-v Ji's ban.

Regards,
KRS

 

[ShivKC]

Sri Kunjuppu

"sangom, those who do not like your type of writing, have really no options or solutions. they just harp on the same anti brahmin theme, denounce periyar and beat their breasts. what do these expect? for 96% of tamil community to fall at their feet, apologize, hand over plum college seats and government jobs and sing praises?"

Nobody is asking to "hand over" college seats, or government jobs. Bring in a fair method based on meritocracy. EVR/DK couldn't once stop to say that brahmins came in those positions they did because of their regard for education. Period. We need to know when we are at fault and when we needn't feel that way. Casteism is wrong - be it practiced by anyone and the blame comes on that community alone.

Stop propaganda on a community. You clearly have a polity that spreads a message to hate a community. And then we go to speak of progressiveness. Brahmins do rituals in Sanskrit, so they hate Tamil - that was the sort of reasoning we saw from Sri Nara.

I mean, what exactly is a progressive society for TN? Is it a society in which a person born into a brahmin family is forced to take the ultimatum of either hating his identity, or not being regarded a tamilian? Please let me know your pov on that question Kunjuppu.

Regards,
Vivek.

sh.KRS, I feel you could have handled this in a better way, than banning sh.vivek. This is not a primary school right.

Before sharing my thoughts here, upon your pending question/warning/clarification seeking, I think, I can confidently say, that I opposed this kind of banning, come what, who he is.

I off late sympathized for sh.RVR's exis, though Im poles apart from him. I appealed from sh.kunjuppu's emotional exist, and appealed him to be back, though i could only agree 50% with him, and I vehemently opposed sh.Nara's stage whispered exit (inspite of him pricking me, many a times) , Im very much clear that people should not be put to gullotine

And sh.Vivek has not done so bad here, when compared to smt.HH or sh.naran (pls go through the old posts)..

but dont forget, you are using the Logo or intagible asset called TamizhBrahmins not Product reviews and prices, software downloads, and tech news - CNET


Your decision on banning sh.vivek only pains me..

anyway, I have a pending repsonse to you against your alert message.. give me some time, I will respond back, not gonna run away.

 

[ShivKC]

Definition of Moral Bankruptcy: moral bankruptcy
Part of Speech: n
Definition: the state of being devoid of morality and ethics, used esp. for business and political entities
Example: A complete lack of morals is moral bankruptcy.

Sri Vivek-v Ji could have used the words 'righteousness/fairness' in his description of Sri Sangom Ji's character. Can not just throw around words, without understanding the meaning of the words used, especially several times after several warnings were issued.

Lack of reverence is never a problem here. Personal attacks are, IRRESPECTIVE of who it is coming from, and Moderation henceforth will be applied on a timely basis.

Moderation is final. This Forum is closed for any further discussions about Sri Vivek-v Ji's ban.

Regards,
KRS

I have posted that any further discussion about Sri Vivek-Ji's ban is closed in this Forum. What part of this sentence above in my last post you did not understand?

Regards,
KRS



my response is due..to you

 

[kunjuppu]

KRS,

this post is not intended to comment on l'affaire du vivek. it is more a comment on the use of certain english words in the context of indian environment.

having lived in canada for over 37 years, i would never dream of open admonishment, or calling someone 'fool, stupid, arrogant or hypocrite' to face. this is part of the north american culture that i have imbibed over time.

whereas, i remember in my younger days in india, use of swear words, the 'n' word, the 'c' word etc was freely and cheerfully thrown around, without any thought. even presently, when i was in india, among relatives, i noticed that people think nothing of using epthets such as 'bloody fool', 'nonsense' or even the occassional 'ba***rd' without ever giving a second thought to the depth of insult.

something which we might want to keep in mind. after all, this is indeed an 'alien' langugage

 

[kkumar29]

Kunjuppu,

I totally agree with you. In my opinion then the onus falls on the poster. The poster needs to make sure that there is no ambiguity in language and there is no scope of misunderstanding. This is very true in the case of internet because you can't see the facial expression of the person who is posting the message. As you say it is an alien language for most, so let us make sure we write simple sentences without any ambiguity.
This should lead to reduced tension and misunderstanding.

K. Kumar.

 

[kunjuppu]

......., so let us make sure we write simple sentences without any ambiguity.
This should lead to reduced tension and misunderstanding.

K. Kumar.

kk,

are you giving me some hints here?

(just to ensure that there is no ambiguity, and this post is made with sheer frivolity in mind, i am writing my facial expression, which is the display of all my 28 teeth, 4 dentures and my heart bubbling with sheer joy at the experience of communicating with you)

i will reinforce this with 3 smileys

 

[kkumar29]

Kunjuppu,

(simple sentence)

K. Kumar

 

[Nara]

Dear Saidevo,

When I step back from the many exchanges and go back to what Shri Sogom oroginally said, I am unable to clearly understand what you are objecting to. I know you have a different POV and will surely interpret facts differently, and that is alright with me. But, there must be a way to understand what the differences are, let alone try to bridge them.

So, I am making this post to understand what the differences are, and also record some of my own observations. Let me start with the quote of what Shri Sangom said originally.

But otherwise, (a) here is a southern corner of the peninsula which has had a distinct language, which, as spoken by the non-erudite masses, is mostly free from the sanskrit language influence. (b) It also became evident that this Tamizh language had a great literary history and its development was free from the vedic or sanskritic influences and presented a society with a sufficiently developed social structure. (c) Amidst this sea of ordinary masses was a small group, holding allegiance to an entirely different culture, religion, scriptures in an alien language and which, at every other step, would convince an impartial student that this small group was living at best as ambassadors of an entirely different era, people, culture, religion and belief system.

Note: The inserted (a), (b), and (c) are mine.

(a) Are you saying at no point in time in the distant past, in the southern most corner of the peninsula, there was a distinct language, mostly free of Sanskrit? In as much as the origin of Tamil and Sanskrit have different origins, there must have existed a time when Tamil was free of Sanskrit influence, no?

(b) It is claimed that Agastya was the first Aryan to cross the Vindhyas. Surely, the Tamils were not completely uncivilized before that. In as much as ilakkanam follows ilakkiyam, there must have been well developed literary tradition by the time of Tolkapiyar, who is claimed to be a pupil of Agastya, the earliest known work on Tamil grammar. So, I am unable to understand why it is unreasonable to think the Tamils had a well developed literary tradition and social structure before Agastya brought Sanskrit and Brahminical Vedas to the Tamil country.

(c) Given what we see even today, I am unable to see what the problem is with the statement about Brahmins that, "Amidst this sea of ordinary masses was a small group, holding allegiance to an entirely different culture, religion, scriptures in an alien language,...". Brahmins even today try to live in small groups, holding allegiance to an entirely different culture, religious practices, scriptures in an alien language. You have yourself conceded this as such, perhaps not about religion, but about culture and language.

So, what is it that you are objecting to, if I may ask?

• Since we Hindus in the past had never been in the habit of documenting our history, all that we know of our history, culture, religion and civilization is only from the religious and literary texts, right? In that case, is there not every possibility that our ancient Tamizhs would certainly have recorded it in their texts if they considered their religion, culture and social structure to be different from that of the Vedic religion? Then what is the problem for you to search for such examples and highlight them, just as you are doing in the case of Sanskrit texts, instead of just voicing your own and current academic opinions?

Yes, the ancients of India were not meticulous about documenting history. We can only make educated guess of what life would have been like based on the literary works that have survived the ravages of time and whims of the ruling class at various times. I feel, as Hart observes, Sanskrit and Tamil influenced each other quite a bit. But we also must note that (i) Sanskrit and Vedas (at least the first 3) are not indigenous to the Tamil people, and (ii) the assimilation of Vedic culture was not free of tension. You may not agree with me, which is alright, but to me, this tension is visible going all the way back to Thirukkural. It is openly visible in Manimekalai in which Aputthiran contemptuously points out the hypocrisy of the Brahmins who were deriding him of his low birth.

I also feel Khalabharas were quite anti-Brahmin. You said so yourself, that they took away land grants made to Brahmins. After they lost power I feel the Brahmins launched a systematic and successful effort to eradicate all textual evidence of that period, not much survived.

The bhakti movement and the literature it produced is a repudiation of Brahminism. I am familiar only with SV, and in it, varna system is criticized in the most stark terms.

Moving further along in time, there is a poem called Kapilar Agaval, in which the author derides the Brahminical practices.

Saidevo, I do not doubt for a moment that you are a decent person. I know you won't continence mistreatment of any other person. That is not the point. To me, and I am sure to Shri Sangom sir as well, it is the system and the mindset it engenders, that is the problem.

To you, reform must not mean losing the Brahmin identity. That is fine, I respect your right to have that opinion. To me, the problem itself is this "Brahmin" identity. I think we need to loose this "Brahmin" identity, in our own mind, for any reform to succeed. To hell with the Nadars and Naidoos if they want to stick to their caste ways. Their narrow vision need not constrain our vista.

Cheers!