Are we brahmins hypocrite

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Mrs RR

In an open forum there will be many opinions. Someone else's opinion needs not have any impact on our convictions if our conviction is based on correct understanding.

Our Hindu way of life tend to create icons out of human beings which the historical person may or may not have lived up to . In my view this is not negative. To us everything is symbolism and the item of symbolism could be based on a historical figure or a character of imagination (as in Puranas).

Once a society has created a symbolism out of a historical figure it is insensitive to say the least to throw gutter water on an icon in the name of history (which in such a context is for losers). The best response is to not engage since in open forum with least moderation this has to be expected.

On the other hand it is a legitimate item of discussion in my view of an analysis of what is available here and now like meaning of a verse of a poem. I do not know the language so I am unable to understand what is being implied. With minimal translation and based on past posts here is what I think.

There are lots of subtle messages in great compositions. I once attended a lecture where a Vidhwan explained the meanings of compositions with all the subtlities.

Many people reading works of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa will miss underlying meanings of Jnana and may literally interpret him to be someone he was not.

Subtlities are often missed by those who can only process literal statements for most part. This is not even a criticism - it is an acknowledgement of a situation that tend to create unnecessary discussions.

Losing body conciousness is one of the central message of Advita Vedanta - if that is the case the verse in question may have many subtle messages. Just a guess on my part.

 

[Vaagmi]

Ideal situations are just ideal. They are not available in practical life. When the yearning of human mind for an ideal situation is given expression in words it becomes just an empty wish. Practical situation is the one in which we live and it has its non-ideal drawbacks. We keep struggling in that. The yearning for an ideal and its expression is also sometime called hypocrisy. So hypocrites are available in different shades and colors. If a man standing in a queue wonders how nice it will be if every one waitsw for his turn it is the expression of the yearning for an ideal solution/situation. When he joins the crowd and muscles his way it is the practical life with all its ugly faces there in display. We can call him a hypocrite because he has loudly expressed the yearning for the ideal while all others did not do that.

Thus we have in this world hypocrites of different kinds.

We have hypocrites who will declare loudly that ahimsa is the best quality and repeat it in Sanskrit as the paramo dharma. Yet he will start his day with an egg omlette and end the day with a chicken soup.

We have hypocrites who would declare loudly that women are to be treated as equals and yet expect the wife to clean the toilet at home while he would be sipping the coffee sitting before the TV.

Why we have very learned and enlightened members here (at least two of them)who had been waxing eloquent about brahmins being casteist pigs etc., and advocating the intercaste marriages as the panacea for all problems. When they were pointedly asked whether they would positively take steps to advise their own children to look for panchaman boys and girls as matches and desist from going for brahmin boys or girls, they equivocated and wriggled out saying their love for their kids was unconditional. That was an ingenious way of escaping from a corner. If this was not hypocrisy what else is?

So what do we conclude?

Hypocrisy appears to be a harmless passtime and just that. Poor brahmin, you may yearn for an ideal world but that is not going to be there for sure. So take care of your self within the jungle laws of the day.

 

[sravna]

Ideal situations are just ideal. They are not available in practical life. When the yearning of human mind for an ideal situation is given expression in words it becomes just an empty wish. Practical situation is the one in which we live and it has its non-ideal drawbacks. We keep struggling in that. The yearning for an ideal and its expression is also sometime called hypocrisy. So hypocrites are available in different shades and colors. If a man standing in a queue wonders how nice it will be if every one waitsw for his turn it is the expression of the yearning for an ideal solution/situation. When he joins the crowd and muscles his way it is the practical life with all its ugly faces there in display. We can call him a hypocrite because he has loudly expressed the yearning for the ideal while all others did not do that.

Thus we have in this world hypocrites of different kinds.

We have hypocrites who will declare loudly that ahimsa is the best quality and repeat it in Sanskrit as the paramo dharma. Yet he will start his day with an egg omlette and end the day with a chicken soup.

We have hypocrites who would declare loudly that women are to be treated as equals and yet expect the wife to clean the toilet at home while he would be sipping the coffee sitting before the TV.

Why we have very learned and enlightened members here (at least two of them)who had been waxing eloquent about brahmins being casteist pigs etc., and advocating the intercaste marriages as the panacea for all problems. When they were pointedly asked whether they would positively take steps to advise their own children to look for panchaman boys and girls as matches and desist from going for brahmin boys or girls, they equivocated and wriggled out saying their love for their kids was unconditional. That was an ingenious way of escaping from a corner. If this was not hypocrisy what else is?

So what do we conclude?

Hypocrisy appears to be a harmless passtime and just that. Poor brahmin, you may yearn for an ideal world but that is not going to be there for sure. So take care of your self within the jungle laws of the day.

Hypocrisy is indeed harmless. I would think it is not even a weakness. It is as you say a pastime for some. But I think there are some who are serious in their advice but themselves cannot live up to that level. And there are many shades in between. Well said.

 

[Nara]

Hypocrisy is indeed harmless. I would think it is not even a weakness. It is as you say a pastime for some. But I think there are some who are serious in their advice but themselves cannot live up to that level. And there are many shades in between. Well said.

sravna, would you please explain what you mean by the highlighted sentence in brown above? And also, is it your position that the first sentence, highlighted in blue, holds for all shades of hypocrisy you are talking about?

Thank you ...

 

[sangom]

Hope this clarifies that Human life can not go well naturally only with pure logic. Even if humans stand upside down, humans can not live without basic human instinct and the quest to stick to something and be happy with things that are beyond logic as well BUT are reasonable for happy, just full and dignified human life.

People who would attempt to survive purely on Logic will end up being Cynical, Egoistic, Cruel, Crude, Hypocrite and the pathetic thing is, would ultimately feel bitter about themselves and their life.

Off course, some people may present themselves as such pure Logical Entity in forums like this BUT be a natural human in real. If not, it is imperative for them to correct themselves and revert to normalcy in synch. with Human Nature, for their own good and good of others surrounding them, IMHO.

My dear Ravi,

The question is not about whether people can/should be surviving purely on logic, etc., but whether, if you hold a certain person as great, then you cannot stand someone who does not hold the same level of respect for that person and expresses his/her views in a common forum like this which is set up exactly for such purpose.

I hope you will try to understand this point.

 

[sangom]

To criticize is worth the effort; but to cast aspersions on holy figures in a website promoted as Tamil Brahmins is sacrilege of the highest order!

Where is the aspersion? And how come Tamil Brahmins website gets a complete monopoly for all "holy figures"?

 

[Raji Ram]

As I already stated, I am only expressing my views and am not at all particular that you or any one else reads/responds to those. Your not reading someone's posts will not be even felt, except by the coterie singing your paeans here, I think.

Thank you very much Sir! I am happy that you are reading all my posts and replying in detail! :ranger: . . . :typing:

 

[Raji Ram]

Dear Mrs RR

In an open forum there will be many opinions. Someone else's opinion needs not have any impact on our convictions if our conviction is based on correct understanding. .......

Dear TKS Sir,

Thank you very much. This is an open forum and when Thyagaraja is belittled, I feel bad. Hence I replied.

Earlier, I have reported posts demeaning Sathya Sai Baba, since there are many devotees in our forum.

The poster might have missed the red ink from the moderator.
I am yet to learn 'yArai enna sonnAl enakku enna?' attitude! :couch2:

 

[sangom]

<snipped>
I am happy that you are reading all my posts and replying in detail! :ranger: . . . :typing:

Yes, in this thread. But I avoid much of the trash which you seem to be posting in various other threads. You will find that initially I might have viewed such threads but having seen the content and quality, I would have completely avoided. After all, they say, துஷ்டனைக் கண்டாலே தூர விலகு. is it not?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Yes, in this thread. But I avoid much of the trash which you seem to be posting in various other threads. You will find that initially I might have viewed such threads but having seen the content and quality, I would have completely avoided. After all, they say, துஷ்டனைக் கண்டாலே தூர விலகு. is it not?

Civil response indeed!!!

 

[Raji Ram]

Civil response indeed!!!

No problem KB Sir. I expected something like this! :couch2:

 

[sravna]

sravna, would you please explain what you mean by the highlighted sentence in brown above? And also, is it your position that the first sentence, highlighted in blue, holds for all shades of hypocrisy you are talking about?

Thank you ...

Dear Shri Nara,

There are people who in essence are honest but just as a sport indulge in hypocritical behaviour. It is a pastime. It is harmless because their intention is not malignant and almost never aimed at people who have trust in them. These people may seem to project something different from what they believe but in essence are truthful to it.

Then there are people who say that they believe in something when they do not actually believe in it. Even this I think is harmless. People can say anything as their beliefs. But wouldn't that be evidently seen as false when they do not show that in their behavior? Thus these people project something of themselves which they do not believe in with a deliberate intention.

Finally you have people who believe in something but are not able to enact it themselves. I think this is not actually a hypocritical behavior but borders on something when the behavior ceases to be hypocritical. This is also not harmless as there is not even a deliberate intention.

 

[Vaagmi]

Originally Posted by Raji Ram
If a person understands a krithi in THIS WAY, it is not possible to debate with that person!
What all 'names' like 'BB' will Thyagaraja get in future is unknown to me! :sad:

Well said.

You tell some one God is great. He will reply what is so great about God.
You tell him God is mercifull. He will reply God is not merciful because he makes me struggle with my enema equipment i n the toilet to get my bowells cleared.
You tell him We worship God in the form of idols because it is convenient for our minds, he will say it is all stone and just மரப்பாச்சி that I play with.
Tell him some people are not ordinary because they have done things which other could not do, he will say there is nothing great about it. They too had a past. They did all those "great" things because they were lazy. If they were so great why were they not rich?

So there is something seriously wrong with these people not withstanding a friend with a like mind chipping in with his "reasonable" interpretation of all this kinky, deviant behavior. You have found the right solution. Just keep away. That is the best option available to you. Best wishes.

 

[Vaagmi]

Yes, in this thread. But I avoid much of the trash which you seem to be posting in various other threads. You will find that initially I might have viewed such threads but having seen the content and quality, I would have completely avoided. After all, they say, துஷ்டனைக் கண்டாலே தூர விலகு. is it not?

The bucket and sprayer effect. LOL.

Civil response indeed!!!
No problem KB Sir. I expected something like this!

Well said indeed.

 

[Nara]

There are people who in essence are honest but just as a sport indulge in hypocritical behaviour. It is a pastime.

[...]

Finally you have people who believe in something but are not able to enact it ..... This is also not harmless as there is not even a deliberate intention.

So, in essence, sravna, the blue-highlighted sentence applies to all the cases implied in the brown-highlighted sentence -- in other words, hypocritical behavior is harmless in all cases, did I understand you correctly?

Also, I am not really sure what you have in your mind for the three cases you have cited. May I request you to give me one or two examples for each case so that I can try to understand your POV better?

Thank you ....

 

[sravna]

So, in essence, sravna, the blue-highlighted sentence applies to all the cases implied in the brown-highlighted sentence -- in other words, hypocritical behavior is harmless in all cases, did I understand you correctly?

Also, I am not really sure what you have in your mind for the three cases you have cited. May I request you to give me one or two examples for each case so that I can try to understand your POV better?

Thank you ....

Dear Shri Nara,

For the first case people such as the brahmins cited in the OP would be good examples. When they say that god is everywhere or one should not jump the queue they could well have meant it even though they did not behave that way. For the second case present day politicians would be fitting examples. For the third case any well meaning person who could not behave that way would be fitting.

The difference between the first and the third is that the former has a better self control and can follow what he says.

 

[Nara]

Thank you very much Sir! I am happy that you are reading all my posts and replying in detail!

Yes, in this thread. But I avoid much of the trash which you seem to be posting in various other threads. You will find that initially I might have viewed such threads but having seen the content and quality, I would have completely avoided. After all, they say, துஷ்டனைக் கண்டாலே தூர விலகு. is it not?

No problem KB Sir. I expected something like this!

Dear Mrs. RR, I know I am wading into troubled waters and if I have any better sense should keep the heck out. But I know I am not endowed with that kind of better sense, so here I go. Besides, you surely are not a member of the imbecile caucus, far from it, so I am less reticent to talk to you.

First, I would like to distance myself from Shri Sangom's comment above, though I think he could argue that he was only responding and he would have a point. In such cases I would have preferred to cut some slack.

Coming to the meat of the matter, Shri Sangom has laid out how the whole thing developed in post #137. Not only that nobody has bothered to challenge him on his account, but nobody has really taken up his substantive criticisms. Please point to it if I have missed it, but there is not a single attack on what he said, all the attacks have been about him -- plain blasphemy, cynical, demeaning, humiliating, personally offended, can't debate with him, his comments are like comic track, etc., etc.

He, on the other hand, save one or two posts, has stayed on topic, cited several compositions and has made a case. I am not sure whether I can agree with his arguments, because I have not heard the other side, all I have seen are emotional reactions.

The only resolution that is possible now is (a) for Sangom, Thyagaraja is a great composer but flawed in his personal life, and (b) for the rest of you, he was a divinely composer who led a godly life and those who question his personal life are %&*^$#% &(%*#@. If this resolution is acceptable, perhaps we can close this issue and move on.

 

[Nara]

For the first case people such as the brahmins cited in the OP would be good examples. When they say that god is everywhere or one should not jump the queue they could well have meant it even though they did not behave that way. For the second case present day politicians would be fitting examples. For the third case any well meaning person who could not behave that way would be fitting.

The difference between the first and the third is that the former has a better self control and can follow what he says.

This is kind of disappointing sravna, the examples you have cited are certainly NOT harmless. Advocating for queue discipline and at then flouting it at the first opportunity certainly is not harmless. It hurts people who listened to him by having to spend more time in the queue, it hurts one's self respect to see one's rightful place in the queue violated, it encourages people to behave in this way outside the temple -- if this is alright even in a temple, surely no harm if we do it elsewhere.

You cite politicians for the second case, and what can be more harmful than campaigning on promises that he/she does not believe in and intends not to keep. The corrosive effect of such behavior is there for all to see everywhere, in India as well, to see this as harmless needs special kind of blindness.

I don't understand the example you have given for the third cases, you have to be more specific than well-meaning person. Would a well-meaning person who believes taking bribe is bad, but goes ahead and takes it anyway because he/she can't help it, or control the urge, would that be an example, you tell me, give a concrete example from the real world.

 

[mkrishna100]

en
I have all ways thinking are we Brahmins hypocrate. This thinking has arisen on account of some observation.
the first observation:
1) i overheard a Brahmin old senior citizen who was standing in line in vadaplani temple on Kartigai deepam day asking other to show some patience and not to jump line. He was telling to others that before God every one is equal. But when spoted some friend, a police officer who was given vip entry he lost no moment to wave hands to greet and with a smile joined him jumping the que.

incident no.2) Another gentlemen who porbably lived long in western countries, was telling every one that in west there is absolute silence in temple and church like in India where people pray at top of their voice. But whe Kalpura arathi was shown he forgot his western praise and shouted at his highest voice Oh Muruga.

incident 3) another gentleman to wanted enter in the middle of the que and when he was ousted out he left the que he left the que with philosphical remark, theryoonilum irupar and thrumbilum irupar, which means God is present everwhere


one thing in common with all these persons: THEY WERE WEARING TRADITIONAL BRAHMIN PANCHA KACHAM AND POONUL WAS OBVLIOUSLY VISIBILE since they did not wear pny top garments.hy

Are we hypocrate.

sathyanarayanan

My take on the above issue is :

No.1 and No.2 are definitely hypocrites and No.3 did not have the basic civic sense to join the queue .
No. 1 and No.2 are definitely hypocrites because they preached something and did not follow it up and quite shameful that they came in Panchakacham and did it . Even if they did not come in Panchakacham they are Hypocrites .
No.3 did not preach anything but did not have the basic manners and so I will not call him a hypocrite and again whether he wore panchakacham or not he lacked basic civic sense .

Now my question is where these 3 the only Brahmins there at the temple ? I am sure many Brahmins visit Vadapalani Temple ? What about them ? Didnt they follow the proper procedure or did they preach something and act contrary ? Why say "Are we hypocrate." based on the behavior of the above 3 .

With regard to Temples I feel Crowd behavior quite nasty in most of the Popular Temples especially during the "Deepa Aradhana" times and also during auspicious days . People from all communities visit the temples and everyone contributes to this nasty behavior . I really do not know what the solution is only that I avoid visiting temples on auspicious dates and auspicious times and prefer to visit when there is less crowd .Among the temples that I have visited I found the "Ayyappa Temple " in Trichy ( in Trichy Cantonment area ) as the best managed Temple ( it is a private temple ) and if every temple follow the same practices as they do then it would be really wonderful .

 

[auh]

To criticize is worth the effort; but to cast aspersions on holy figures in a website promoted as Tamil Brahmins is sacrilege of the highest order!

Shri vgane, the term "holy figures" is itself subject to debate. I come from a very traditional household and we generally don't accept most of the "holy men" that seem to appeal to the masses today. Even Matathipathis are not held sacrosanct and we analyze their actions and its relevance. In a sense I don't see any sacrilege committed here.

 

[sravna]

This is kind of disappointing sravna, the examples you have cited are certainly NOT harmless. Advocating for queue discipline and at then flouting it at the first opportunity certainly is not harmless. It hurts people who listened to him by having to spend more time in the queue, it hurts one's self respect to see one's rightful place in the queue violated, it encourages people to behave in this way outside the temple -- if this is alright even in a temple, surely no harm if we do it elsewhere.

You cite politicians for the second case, and what can be more harmful than campaigning on promises that he/she does not believe in and intends not to keep. The corrosive effect of such behavior is there for all to see everywhere, in India as well, to see this as harmless needs special kind of blindness.

I don't understand the example you have given for the third cases, you have to be more specific than well-meaning person. Would a well-meaning person who believes taking bribe is bad, but goes ahead and takes it anyway because he/she can't help it, or control the urge, would that be an example, you tell me, give a concrete example from the real world.

Dear Shri Nara,

The point is, the hypocritical per se is not harmful. In the above cases assume the brahmin mentioned genuinely thought that jumping the queue was harmful or the politician genuinely believed in what he said. Actually these two would then correspond to the third case. Now does it make a difference? It doesn't to the people who are affected. So it is not by the hypocrisy itself that people are affected but by the very nature of the act that is inflicted upon them. That is, it does not make a difference to the aggrieved whether the the person who caused the grievance believes in certain thing or not. In all the three case the the belief of the hypocritical person does not make a difference. So the grievance cannot be attributed to hypocrisy

 

[Nara]

....The point is, the hypocritical per se is not harmful. ..... So the grievance cannot be attributed to hypocrisy

A nice piece of jujitsu, it is not the hypocrisy that harms, it is the action that results from the hypocrisy that harms, and if the victim does not know, there is no harm to the victim.

I see it differently, hypocrisy at its core is deception and fraud, it is harmful to both the hypocrite and those around him/her. It breeds anger and contempt. No, hypocrisy is not harmless.

 

[sravna]

A nice piece of jujitsu, it is not the hypocrisy that harms, it is the action that results from the hypocrisy that harms, and if the victim does not know, there is no harm to the victim.

I see it differently, hypocrisy at its core is deception and fraud, it is harmful to both the hypocrite and those around him/her. It breeds anger and contempt. No, hypocrisy is not harmless.

Dear Shri Nara,

My point is does one's act hurt another more if one does not believe in what he does?

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nara,

My point is does one's act hurt another more if one does not believe in what he does?

To me, this sounds like the proverbial cat wondering whether the world goes dark when it closes its eyes?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

If "greatness" were to be the criteria for deification, to put a human on the lofty clouds, I guess there would be only deities everywhere, for can we not glorify that in everyone ignoring whatever weakness/faults there may be? Then, in a sense we are all equals, and there is no greater status.

But we don't have deities everywhere. Therefore we can conclude people have the sense to discriminate between ordinary people and great people. My point is deification is not harmful as it is made out to be. That everything must be looked at "critically" by everyone is just a specious argument.