Brahminism in current day context

[suraju06]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Hi Iyer,

your post #66 for reference:

Can we come out of this shell, cocoon which we call 'Brahminism'!!! I think it never existed. It is only an illusion, a deception, a false and an unreal identity. In the present context, no individual can afford to be exclusive. The globe is shrinking to a village, thanks to WWW, etc etc. I read Chinmayanda's interpretation of the 66th Verse of the Gita, where it is written 'Sarva Dharman Parithyajya ...'. Literally translated it means 'Shed all Dharmas..'. Chinmaya begins his sermon and interpretation by questioning the verse itself like this 'If we should shed Dharma, why Dharma at all?'. He goes on to explain the meaning of the Dharma in the context and after a long discourse eventually he sums up saying 'Shed your ego and surrender to the Supreme personality of Godhead. He will cleanse you of all sins. You shall have no fear". Prabhupada Das, the founder of ISKCON, makes it very simple by interpreting it as 'Abandon all religions and come to me'. Hence in the present context, we need to shed the 'Brahmin' tag itself and return to the highest state of being, that of 'Human', who we were when created.

First the term "brahminism" needs to be defined. If you mean brahminism to be the cultural,religious and caste identity of a group of people, please read further. Otherwise please define "brahminism" first and then move on to express your views about it. Presuming that you are referring to the cultural, religious and caste identity of a group of people I proceed further here:

Brahminism is not a shell or a cocoon. It is just a tag to identify a group of people who have many common religious and cultural values.

I have given this example once earlier and now for your convenience give it here. A girl while returning from her office by driving her car hears a thud in a poorly lit road. As she had seen a cat darting across in the head light she thinks she had hit it. She stops the car, gets down and looks for the cat. But could not see any cat. Yet on returning home she spends sleepless night thinking about the cat and its fate. There is a boy in the neighbourhood who is seen playing with a chicken in the backyard. He is all love for it and speaks with it and plays with it. His mother asks him for the chicken from her kitchen and the boys chases and catches the chicken. He proceeds further to twist its head to kill it and meticulously removes the feathers, cleans it and hands it over to his mother. He would have perhaps relished the dish when it came to his dining table also. Don’t you think the cultural values here which get/got ingrained in the two individuals are diametrically opposite?

There are many such values which have gone into the value system of the group which you call Brahmins(ahimsa being just one of them). Please understand that I am not judging any of these values as good or bad. They are just values which are dear to and inseparable from the group. Now you have to answer,what is wrong in having such values and identifying oneself as belonging to a group owing allegiance to such values? Would you still say that the group has an identity which is illusion, deception,false and unreal? Chinmayananda’s interpretation of the Geeta slokha is only a repetition of what has been done by many others. Brahmins as a group would be happy even without the ‘brahmin’ tag but others would not let that happen. Every group is happy with its own tag and is happy if others too have a tag. Even the WWW(about which you have mentioned here) promotes groups and gives them each a tag.

We are humans no doubt. We are also Indians, Pakistanis, British, Americans, Russians, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Nordics, Scots, Anglo-Saxons, Slavs, Brahmins, Mudaliyars, Thevars, Pillais, Gounders,rich,poor,middle class, bureaucracy, labour class,blacks, whites, mongoloids ………etc…..etc., all these names being just tags of identity. The rest is all politics.

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

Does this mean whatever Chinmayananda said has to be 100% correct? Whereas whatever researchers say is wrong? Its 'wrong' just because it goes against one's own pet beliefs?

Please note, Chinamaya Mission, Arya Samaj, Art of Living, and such organisations are not involved in researching the religion from the historic pov. They do not compare religious literature against inscriptions, study cultural phases based on epigraphies, archeological finds, linguistic evidence, numismatics, etc.

No need to compare things that are uncomparable.

Those who want to beleive have all the freedom to do so. If their 'faith' is strong they need not feel threatened by info given by researchers.

Mr. Nara how can you be anything but 100% correct!!! And you have to have the last word.
Unfortunately for you I do not think you as an ultimate authority, SO I DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT YOUR WORDS.

 

[happyhindu]

Mr. Nara how can you be anything but 100% correct!!! And you have to have the last word.
Unfortunately for you I do not think you as an ultimate authority, SO I DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT YOUR WORDS.

lol...nowhere did i ask you to accept my words. Funny, eh :laugh:

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Happy Hindu,

Just as clarification: Raghy's understanding of my ideas is absolutely correct. Thanks for asking for my clarification.

Happy New Year to all!

--- Balaji

Thankyou for the clarification.

 

[happyhindu]

., all these names being just tags of identity. The rest is all politics.

Yes, so true, it was always politics, right from the days the brahmanas (ritual texts) were created, or possibly right from the time of dasarajna war itself...

 

[kunjuppu]

First the term "brahminism" needs to be defined. If you mean brahminism to be the cultural,religious and caste identity of a group of people, please read further. Otherwise please define "brahminism" first and then move on to express your views about it. Presuming that you are referring to the cultural, religious and caste identity of a group of people I proceed further here:

Brahminism is not a shell or a cocoon. It is just a tag to identify a group of people who have many common religious and cultural values.

.

dear suraju,

beg your pardon.

sometimes, certain phrases or words, are so pregnant with connotations!

i think, 'brahminism', is one of those. i think, it is not, just, 'a tag to identify a group of people who have many common religious and cultural values'.

though it could mean just that. for you.

but i feel, it means, a certain set of values, rising from the laws of manu, to how a hindu society should be structured, right from the concept of twice born, division of society per varnas, to set rules and responsibilities per each varna, and above all, consigning a set of folks to be as panchamas, or beyond the varnas, who still populate bharatvarsha, and who will and must and have no redemption beyond, to certain duties and tasks, and if they aspire to anything beyond, will be meted out with punishments.

atleast, this is my understanding, and i might be completely off base here. ofcourse, i have had other posters, accusing me of ignorance and hatred towards our traditions, and my interpretation, as above, could be construed to be within the borders, of such consignment.

if you would be so inclined, to think otherwise, i beg of you, to consider, my alternate definition of 'brahminism', as simply, an alternate definition. without much ado and challenge, to your immense logic and arguement powers.

with muchly regards...

 

[prasad1]

"For all the ills of the present day society in India, it has become a
fashion to blame Brahminism and the Brahmin Community. It is
interesting to look at the history of Brahmins in India. At any time
in the history, Brahmins were neither an economic nor a political
power. In the history their number was always insignificant to make
any difference. As of today Brahmins only constitute 4% of the
population in India. In order to protect Brahminism and Sanatana
Dharma Brahmins always migrated from place to place when threatened.
Brahmins waging war for their survival is unheard of. Brahmins are
seen as instrumental in bringing about reforms for the wellbeing of
the society."

[h=2]BRAHMINISM -- Yesterday,Today & Tomorrow[/h]

BRAHMINISM --- Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow

-- An Article published in Brahmodaya, a Souvenir
​

Attached Files

• 
  Brahminism.doc‎ (32.5 KB, 11 views)

 

[guruvayurappan]

dear suraju,

beg your pardon.

sometimes, certain phrases or words, are so pregnant with connotations!

i think, 'brahminism', is one of those. i think, it is not, just, 'a tag to identify a group of people who have many common religious and cultural values'.

though it could mean just that. for you.

but i feel, it means, a certain set of values, rising from the laws of manu, to how a hindu society should be structured, right from the concept of twice born, division of society per varnas, to set rules and responsibilities per each varna, and above all, consigning a set of folks to be as panchamas, or beyond the varnas, who still populate bharatvarsha, and who will and must and have no redemption beyond, to certain duties and tasks, and if they aspire to anything beyond, will be meted out with punishments.

atleast, this is my understanding, and i might be completely off base here. ofcourse, i have had other posters, accusing me of ignorance and hatred towards our traditions, and my interpretation, as above, could be construed to be within the borders, of such consignment.

if you would be so inclined, to think otherwise, i beg of you, to consider, my alternate definition of 'brahminism', as simply, an alternate definition. without much ado and challenge, to your immense logic and arguement powers.

with muchly regards...

dear kunjuppu sir !
nice explanation..but people will tell simply because you have born in that community you can not claim that you are brahmin. the same applies to all community since no body is able to follow strictly the duties prescribed in varnashrams. (some body may be telling for this also -so what if you are not able to followif -it is the convenient )
guruvayurappan

 

[kunjuppu]

dear kunjuppu sir !
nice explanation..but people will tell simply because you have born in that community you can not claim that you are brahmin. the same applies to all community since no body is able to follow strictly the duties prescribed in varnashrams. (some body may be telling for this also -so what if you are not able to followif -it is the convenient )
guruvayurappan

dear guru,

thank you.

i think, the term, 'brahminism', is a little different, especially with its implied connotations. in tamil nadu, that i know. and which is fast changing.

the definition maybe passe, but two different views exist. one is the community as per suraju's definition. the other implies a certain set of values. all i am trying to say is that there is no one agreed upon to description, and am not supporting or defending, a situation, which is fast disappearing from daily walk of life.

interestingly, wikipedia has an ideal definition... far removed from today's brahmins. but makes interesting reading though

Brahminism

 

[happyhindu]

Am pasting the contents of the doc attached by prasad1, Brahmanism.doc, so that unregistered readers can also read it. Am underlining some key points which may come across as possible obfuscations, and adding some points in marron bold:

Brahminism - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.

An article published in Brahmodaya a souvenir.

Rig Veda is the earliest known scripture for the mankind. It is mentioned that one is born in a Brahmin Family on account of Poorva Karma. Just being born in a Brahmin family does not make one a Brahmin until the person qualifies himself through education and practice and acquires such knowledge as to apply for the wellbeing of the individuals and society. In the scriptures of Sanatana Dharma one can see plenty of references where persons have changed their caste based on their capabilities and practice. [My note: If people changed caste how were they born brahmins ? ]

One can easily see that many contributors to Vedas were non Brahmins and women. Vedas never mentioned about untouchabilities as practiced or seen to-day in the Indian society. In Vedic teachings the importance of every section of the society is very much recognized and all persons are treated with equal respect while keeping the highest respect for persons of Knowledge. [My note: Varna system was not present in the vedic period, so these claims do not hold true].

One need to know Shri Rama, Shri Krishna whom we worship are not born as brahmins. The writers of Ramayana and Mahabharatha are not Brahmins. Sage Vuswamitra who is not a brahmin was given the highest honor as Brahma Rishi. We can quote many such examples.

In every day chanting of Purusha Sukta reference is made for different caste and explains how each caste has been formed from the different sections of the human body. While Brahmins come out of face, Shudras come out from feet. In between Kshatriya came out of shoulders and Vaisya from thigh. Without understanding the real meaning of it Hindus have been brain washed by the wrong interpretation given by the vested interests. [My note: Instead of blaming 'vested interests', please let us know who are 'vested interests', why is anyone against varna system labelled 'vested interest'?]

For a human being to stand erect, firm and to move forward feet forms the essential part of the body. It is associated with productivity, economic growth, mobility and progress. Shudra community is associated with productivity and economic strength. The wellbeing of the society, and the Nation depends on the productivity. It is a common practice with Hindus to touch the feet of the elders and Gurus to get the blessings. Hindus wash the feet of the holy persons and elders. Feet forms an important part of the human body so also the society, hence Shudra community forms a very important section of the society. Feet was never intended to depict a low status of any community. [My note: kindly provide proof from the dharmashastras that shudras did not belong to low status in the varna system].

As Brahmins have Gotras, similarly one can see many non Brahmins in different parts of India use the Gotra to define their lineage. Most of the non Brahmins for some unknown reasons gave up using the Gothra. Later generations of non Brahmins lost it since they did not know it.

For many cast based prejudices Manu Smrithi is quoted. Most of the time it is quoted out of context with wrong interpretations as given by vested interests. [My note: Again, kindly clarify who are 'vested interests'?] Manu Smrithi is not a scripture. It is a treatise written by a sociologist at that time. [My note: was Manu a sociologist?]. As it is always said while interpreting and applying we need to know the KAALA, DESHA and STHITHI. If writings are not interpreted based on the time, place and the conditions, no wonder they lead to misinterpretations causing hate, prejudice and disharmony in the society.

Untouchability of the present type did not exist during Vedic period. [My note: Again, Varna system was not present in the vedic period, so these claims are baseless].

If a person gets a law degree and takes up a salaried job then he is a Shudra, if one conducts or does business with that knowledge then he is Vaisya, if used in the field of politics and leadership then he is a Kshtriya and if used to promote justice and Dharma without taking money then he is a Brahmin. Today most of the Brahmins are practicing Shudras. [My note: Then why do such folks still claim to be brahmins?]

For all the ills of the present day society in India, it has become a fashion to blame Brahminism and the Brahmin Community. It is interesting to look at the history of Brahmins in India. At any time in the history, Brahmins were neither an economic nor a political power. [My note: This is an utter falsity. You can claim this only until the time of Mauryas. From the Sunga rule onwards, we see rulers claiming to be brahmins or enforcing strict varna rules. Hence this lack of economic and political power claim is baseless. Ofcourse in some regions or some kingdoms, esp non-hindu ones, varna system was not followed in some periods of time. That may not suffice to claim lack of economic and political power. In various scriptures, such as Brahmanas (ritual texts) and the Dharmashastras, brahmans have vested in themselves the highest position with niche access to economic and political power].

In the history their number was always insignificant to make any difference. As of today Brahmins only constitute 4% of the population in India. [My note: No point comparing with present-day statistics. We have evidence of kshatropeta brahman armies - that is, entire armies].

In order to protect Brahminism and Sanatana Dharma Brahmins always migrated from place to place when threatened. Brahmins waging war for their survival is unheard of. Brahmins are seen as instrumental in bringing about reforms for the wellbeing of the society. [My note: proof please?].

Looking at the history of Brahminism, we need to divide the time as follows. 1). Before 400 B.C. 2) Between 400 B.C and 7the Century A.D. 3) Between 7th and 12 century A.D. 4) 12th century to 1800 A.D. and later.

The first attack on Brahminism came from Buddhism. During Buddhistic wave many Brahmins took to Buddhism. [My note: the context of who is a brahman in buddhism is different from the smrithi concept of brahmin-by-birth. Do you have proof "buddhist-brahmins" were born in hindu-brahmin families?]

Large populations, especially in North India took to Buddhism. India also got disarmed. Buddhists attacked Vedic thought and rituals. Brahminism took back seat. In 7th century A.D. when Adi Shankara came on the scene once again Vedic thought prevailed. [My note: Clarify if Adi Shankara devoted himself to Advaitha or did he himself revive vedic thought? Please elaborate what is vedic thought?].

Between 7th and 12th century a transient India coming out of disarmament but not enough to withstand the onslaught of Islam. Once again Brahminism became a causality.Many practices not followed during Vedic times were introduced to save the society from humiliation, dishonor and destruction. [My note: What practices were introduced?]

By attacking Brahminism, the attackers realized the easiness with which one could demoralize the Hindus and the Hindu thought. [My note: hinduism is far too wide, complex and varied and can survive without brahmanism.]

All over India during this time one can see mass movements of migrations of Brahmins. With British establishing rule on India while the migration of Brahmins stopped, systematic onslaught on Hinduism in a very subtle way was institutionalized. Every thing Brahminical was attacked, population
was fed wrong information to create division. Hate towards Brahmins was promoted without the direct knowledge of the population. During British time while most of India was under the rule of Kings, the areas which were under the British like Bombay, Madras Presidencies and Bengal etc saw an erosion of Hinduism and Brahmins slowly were demoralized. Hate towards Brahmins was well cultivated. Today one can find the result of such a cultivation. [My note: What was the role of colonial period dominant brahmins in contributing to public dislike of them?]

Brahmins never denied education to the masses [My note: Please read dharmashastras, go thru social systems followed in various kingdoms, and after that try claiming this].

As per British statistics 80% of the students in schools were non brahmins in all parts of India during 18th and 19th century.. In 17th and 18th century there were more percentage of educated persons in states than what was at the time of freedom (1947). Public Schools in villages (Pathashalas or Gurukulas ) were systematically closed by denying the economic support. [My note: No use providing stats from British India period. Please provide relevant statistics from hindu kingdoms which were following smrithis / varna system].

Brahmins never sought salaried jobs [My note: Not true. Right from the time of Pallavas, brahmins were involved in non-priestly jobs such as finance, administration, etc].

They lived a frugal life at the good will of the society / villagers [My note: One can say temple priests may have been poor. But there is no evidence to suggest existence of poverty amongst those who performed homams / sacrifices. There is ample evidence of expensive gifts within the brahmanas / ritual texts themselves].

As villages lost their independence people found it difficult to meet even their basic needs. [My note: under the varna/caste system, those at the bottom had nothing to loose]. Brahmins lost their independence and became salaried employees. [My note: brahmins themselves sought jobs in colonial period under british government. They were not driven to seek such jobs by non-brahmin villagers].

More harm is done to Brahmins in free India than in British India. When India became free, including Kings every one was poor. Every one was looking for economic improvements. Education was key to success for a meaningful living. Who ever had education got the jobs in the Government and else where. Brahmins who had the highest percentage of educated people got jobs which became the eye sore of other communities. While reservation was good to protect the interest of weaker sections of the society, if used at the cost of other communities both the society and Government suffers. We see that effect in the society in India to day. [My note: India seems to be doing well with reservations].

When ever Dharma is eroding, Brahmins have a major part to play to reestablish the Dharma ( Moral and Ethical standards). [My note: Kindly clarify is 'dharma' in buddhism different from 'dharma' in hinduism? How does 'dharma' in hinduism erode?].

Brahmins for no fault of theirs are blamed, hence one can see a low self esteem, low pride and a guilt feeling with Brahmin youth. [My note: is this true?].

Ritualistic part of life has lost its meaning. [My note: NBs have no role to play in this. Folks who barely manage to do sandhya should ask this to themselves - why rituals have lost its meaning?].

When younger generation marry outside the Brahmin community, the gene pool gets altered. The Satvik attributes gets diluted. [My note: Please explain from the genetic pov how it gets altered and diluted? How can one claim Satvik nature is assignable to brahmins alone?]

For the good of the society Satvik, Rajas and Tamas attributes are important ingredients. Propagation of Dharma is mostly done by persons of Satvik attributes. What has been nourished over a period of thousands of years, is very hard to see that it is getting diluted. In every state in India Brahmins population is decreasing. If not recognized and corrective actions initiated no doubt Brahmins may become extinct. Family planning should not be followed indiscriminately. One can see in India some highly educated communities are already on the verge of extinction.

Time is ripe for Brahmins to come together to evaluate objectively their status in the society. Act to assert their identity. Educate the masses about the misinformation spread by the vested interests against Brahmins. If Sanatana Dharma is to survive, it is essential for Brahminism to be preserved.

About the author: Mr H.S Aswathanarayana by profession is an engineer, now retired. Is involved in community organizations of Asian Indian origin both locally and nationally & He lives in Taberncle NJ. [My note: If someday Shri Ashwathanarayana reads this, I request him to clarify on the said points please. Thankyou.]

 

[suraju06]

Kunjuppu,

Your post #81:

i feel, it means, a certain set of values, rising from the laws of manu, to how a hindu society should be structured, right from the concept of twice born, division of society per varnas, to set rules and responsibilities per each varna, and above all, consigning a set of folks to be as panchamas, or beyond the varnas, who still populate bharatvarsha, and who will and must and have no redemption beyond, to certain duties and tasks, and if they aspire to anything beyond, will be meted out with punishments.

I can give you an answer in just one word. Manu was not a brahmin. He was a Kshatriya. I have been repeatedly making this point that the structure of the society was not the making of brahmins. The society made it (this includes every one who have to share the blame equally) and the society refuses to own it because they have a hapless minority among them readily available to condemn and hang. The irony is that the same society-or the majority of it which legislates and frames laws today as it did in the past and which implements them-still keeps the minority condemned to the dungheap of cheris. You don't have a word-just a word, not sentences -about this hypocracy. What more, you have only appreciation(you have called them revolutionary social heroes and their rule the golden age) for the politicians who perpetuate the injustice.

atleast, this is my understanding, and i might be completely off base here. ofcourse, i have had other posters, accusing me of ignorance and hatred towards our traditions, and my interpretation, as above, could be construed to be within the borders, of such consignment.

Kunjuppu, your understanding is totally wrong. I have nothing to say about your ignorance or hatred towards our traditions. But your interpretations as given in your post are totally off the base.

if you would be so inclined, to think otherwise, i beg of you, to consider, my alternate definition of 'brahminism', as simply, an alternate definition. without much ado and challenge, to your immense logic and arguement powers.

We are not playing scrabble here to shuffle with words. Your alternate interpretation to be accepted by others will have to have logic in it. I note with dismay your heckling in the last part of the sentence where you have said....your immense logic and arguement powers.... As you are a friend I take it as a banter and move on.

with muchly regards...

muchly in Marathi and some other Indian languages means fish(!) or is it that I am unnecessarily smelling something fishy here.

Cheers friend.

 

[gopaindu]

Sympathy needed for Dalits

not true...even two generations later, the germans have a deep sense of guilt over nazism. nazism they claim was an aberration, out of a culture that produced beethoven and max planck; nazism had a life of less than 25 years on germany, and in those 25 years damaged them worth a millenium.

manu and his laws, and his followers had milleniums to solidify their views, to such an extent, that folks even brought up in the usa, have had this feeling of a separate hinduism of their own so inculcated, that it is depressing.

one cannot compare the pride of sikhs or rajput with the treatment meted out to the dalits. why is it that we say, that we have nothing to do with the miserable plight of the dalits. why do we say that it is the fault of the dalits for their own misery?

why is it that we do not have one ounce of empathy? why is it that we have to suffer cancer to know its pain?

The condition of Dalits especially poor, needs sympathy and something needs to be done to raise their level. Unfortunately, politicians for selfish reasons want them to be poor so that they can exploitation. Infact, any powerful or rich human being desires that poor should always be poor irrespective of the caste because poverty is due to ignorance and once ignorant is overcome by the poor through awareness and education, then they cannot be exploited anymore. This is most uncomfortable for the rich people and people endowed with power as they have to share their richness/lose their power. Therefore, instead of giving education, sanitation, employment opportunities and housing they pay lip sympathy and at the time when their services are needed,they are given cheap gifts and make lot of promises for their upliftment without any intention to fulfil them. Unfortunately, rich and powerful dalits themselves do not make any effort for their upliftment but only exploit them. This is true of any caste including brahmins. Of course, there are a few exceptions like NGOs, individuals including foreigners, Christian missions,etc. The quota fixed for SC,ST, OBC and MBC for Government jobs are mostly grabbed by rich and powerful people belonging to those castes/tribes or those who are nearer to the centres of power.

Secondly, the word dalit needs to be recoined as economically backward and should include all castes. For those who are first generation literates, they should be helped by special training in acquiring skills, prepare themselves for higher education and competitive examinations. People belonging to Dalits and other castes and poor may get uplifted due to the above measures taken up with dedication. People living in rural areas suffer more than their counterparts in cities. rajaji48

 

[sarma-61]

"Brahminism" is the sum total of the way of life of brahmins. Since, there are various kinds of brahmins there are as many different kinds of brahminisms also. Hence, there can be no one definition of brahminism also.

Those who find fault with or attack "brahminism" should first know and realize that they are following "anti-brahminism" and nothing more. They are as bad or as good as brahmins and "brahminism". brahminism has survived in spite of many, many difficulties and it will continue to change, adapt and exist for centuries if not for thousands of years to come. Simply because some brahmins/ non-brahmins have gone to other countries and have been making lot of money in foreign exchange, they don't have any right to criticize brahmins, brahminism or the customs of brahmins. If such unnecessary criticism continues outside this website, brahmins will be ready to teach these fellows a lesson they will never forget just as bil laden did to the entire america.

 

[sarma-61]

Nice point sir - Since, there are various kinds of brahmins there are as many different kinds of brahminisms also. So true indeed. There must be many kinds of brahmanism..No wonder authors define it so relatively...

There is another word called 'Neo-Brahmanism' - coined by Banerjee to indicate new brahmanical creeds with absorption of non-vedic deities into the vedic fold.

Anti-brahmanism is relative. One cud call Buddhism and Jainism as anti-brahmanism.

I will say buddhism and jainism were anti-vedas, they were not anti-brahmin. In both buddhism and jainism there are equivalents of brahmins also, but called by different names perhaps.

 

[Iyer]

Hi Iyer,

your post #66 for reference:




First the term "brahminism" needs to be defined. If you mean brahminism to be the cultural,religious and caste identity of a group of people, please read further. Otherwise please define "brahminism" first and then move on to express your views about it. Presuming that you are referring to the cultural, religious and caste identity of a group of people I proceed further here:

Brahminism is not a shell or a cocoon. It is just a tag to identify a group of people who have many common religious and cultural values.

I have given this example once earlier and now for your convenience give it here. A girl while returning from her office by driving her car hears a thud in a poorly lit road. As she had seen a cat darting across in the head light she thinks she had hit it. She stops the car, gets down and looks for the cat. But could not see any cat. Yet on returning home she spends sleepless night thinking about the cat and its fate. There is a boy in the neighbourhood who is seen playing with a chicken in the backyard. He is all love for it and speaks with it and plays with it. His mother asks him for the chicken from her kitchen and the boys chases and catches the chicken. He proceeds further to twist its head to kill it and meticulously removes the feathers, cleans it and hands it over to his mother. He would have perhaps relished the dish when it came to his dining table also. Don’t you think the cultural values here which get/got ingrained in the two individuals are diametrically opposite?

There are many such values which have gone into the value system of the group which you call Brahmins(ahimsa being just one of them). Please understand that I am not judging any of these values as good or bad. They are just values which are dear to and inseparable from the group. Now you have to answer,what is wrong in having such values and identifying oneself as belonging to a group owing allegiance to such values? Would you still say that the group has an identity which is illusion, deception,false and unreal? Chinmayananda’s interpretation of the Geeta slokha is only a repetition of what has been done by many others. Brahmins as a group would be happy even without the ‘brahmin’ tag but others would not let that happen. Every group is happy with its own tag and is happy if others too have a tag. Even the WWW(about which you have mentioned here) promotes groups and gives them each a tag.

We are humans no doubt. We are also Indians, Pakistanis, British, Americans, Russians, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Nordics, Scots, Anglo-Saxons, Slavs, Brahmins, Mudaliyars, Thevars, Pillais, Gounders,rich,poor,middle class, bureaucracy, labour class,blacks, whites, mongoloids ………etc…..etc., all these names being just tags of identity. The rest is all politics.

Cheers.

Dear Mr. Raju,

You seem to be confused and unclear about 'Cultural', 'Religous', 'Value' etc. These exist only in the imaginary realm and are not real. Please define to your own self 'Culture' and 'Religion'. There is no common culture or Religion existing among Brahmins in the current times. Even the other identities you mentioned are identities of comfort. They are relative and not absolute. They will cease after some time. If you think as Brahmin you have a unique cultural, Religous identity and value system you are deceiving your own self. Just introspect into yourself and verify if you are being honest and sincere in your pronouncements.

Can you please clearly specify the Cultural and Religous values and value systems, common among Brahmins now?

We eat, sleep, wear cloths and live in houses like everyone else. We go for jobs like everyone else. We are after American Dollar like everyone else. We pretend an identity and uniqueness like everyone else. We have conditioned our minds, programmed our thinking like everyone else. We say one thing and do another thing like everyone else.

How are we different from a so-called Gounder, so-called Nadar, so-called sakkili, so-called Pallan, so-called parayan?

Luv,
Iyer.

 

[happyhindu]

I will say buddhism and jainism were anti-vedas, they were not anti-brahmin. In both buddhism and jainism there are equivalents of brahmins also, but called by different names perhaps.

Sir please correct me if am wrong. Both jainism and buddhism were against the brahmanical religion of sacrifices, weren't they? Also Sikhism cud be called anti-brahmanism because Guru Nanak was against brahmanical stuff. Sir, just because Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism have the equivalents of priests, they do not become pro-brahmanism, do they?

 

[sarma-61]

Sir please correct me if am wrong. Both jainism and buddhism were against the brahmanical religion of sacrifices, weren't they? Also Sikhism cud be called anti-brahmanism because Guru Nanak was against brahmanical stuff. Sir, just because Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism have the equivalents of priests, they do not become pro-brahmanism, do they?

I am not a scholar in buddhism or jainism. But I think that those were against the vedas. Now vedas, at least in those olden days, were learnt by all the three dvija castes - braahmanas, kshatriyas and vaishyas. And buddhism and jainism did not start as a rebellion against brahmins, but against all that the vedas taught. In that sense, buddhism and jainism were only against the subject matter vedas and against the people who practised it. Many people from the three castes became buddists and many brahmins became great buddhist acharyas, I am told. How this could happen, if buddhism was anti-brahmin? same with jainism.

Regarding sikhism it was created for repulsing the muhammedans; that was its avowed aim. The granth sahib has many references to hindu gods which could not have come if the sikh gurus equated hinduism with brahmanism.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Mr. Iyer,

Your post #91 for reference:

You had mentioned in your post #66 a certain ‘brahminism’ and had exhorted all of us to come out of that cocoon. I want to know more about this cocoon. Can you please tell me what you have understood about brahminism? You have said that culture, religion, value etc exist only in the imaginary realm. It is not clear what you mean by this. Are you saying that they are not physical entities which can be seen or felt?(I don’t think you are so naïve or that you consider me to be so naïve). If not what else is the meaning of your statement? Please enlighten me. “There is no common culture or religion existing among Brahmins”, you have said. If so why are we here in this Tamil Brahmins web site discussing about Brahmins( though most of the time deriding them). What is it that makes us Brahmins/or Iyer? If this is an identity of comfort as you may contend, please tell me what sort of comfort? And for whom? Or is it without any basis? And you have very eloquently said “ If you think as Brahmin you have a unique cultural, Religous identity and value system you are deceiving your own self. Just introspect into yourself and verify if you are being honest and sincere in your pronouncements”. It is not only me majority of the people in the world think they all have unique group identities and so are known by the tags that are attached to them as a group. I am as honest about my view as you would like yourself to be. I will tell you what are the common religious, cultural and moral values which are common among Brahmins after knowing what you have understood of the term brahminism which is your starting point.

About this gem from you, I will give my reply after knowing what is your understanding of Brahmins/brahminism.—“We eat, sleep, wear cloths and live in houses like everyone else. We go for jobs like everyone else. We are after American Dollar like everyone else. We pretend an identity and uniqueness like everyone else. We have conditioned our minds, programmed our thinking like everyone else. We say one thing and do another thing like everyone else”

Cheers.

 

[happyhindu]

I am not a scholar in buddhism or jainism. But I think that those were against the vedas. Now vedas, at least in those olden days, were learnt by all the three dvija castes - braahmanas, kshatriyas and vaishyas. And buddhism and jainism did not start as a rebellion against brahmins, but against all that the vedas taught. In that sense, buddhism and jainism were only against the subject matter vedas and against the people who practised it. Many people from the three castes became buddists and many brahmins became great buddhist acharyas, I am told. How this could happen, if buddhism was anti-brahmin? same with jainism.

Regarding sikhism it was created for repulsing the muhammedans; that was its avowed aim. The granth sahib has many references to hindu gods which could not have come if the sikh gurus equated hinduism with brahmanism.

Dear Sir,

Am no scholar either.

I agree vedas were learnt by all dvija 'castes'. However we have cases in history where people came to power, formed kingdoms and then took dvija status. So in that sense i agree with some historians like staal who say that vedas may have changed hands. In the sense that it was passed on to different people in different periods of time.

I do agree jainism and buddhism were against vedas and the brahmanical religion. I sincerely do not know how many 'buddhist-brahmins' were actually born in hindu families.

I also do not know how many brahmins converted to jains (have heard of jains converting into brahmins but not vice-versa).

All the same, just because some brahmins became buddhists (or jains), wud that mean Buddhism and Jainism were not anti-brahmanism? Is going against the vedas and brahmanical preachings not considered anti-brahmanism?

Sikhism retained hindu gods (gods are different from brahmins). But Guru Nanak himself was against caste system, empty religious rituals, etc. Maybe one cud say he represented as much anti-brahminism as Narayana Guru of Kerala. Just that Nanak preached a lot more openly (ex: there is a parable of Nanak offering water to his fields after a priest told him he was offering water to the sun, etc)...

So i suppose Buddhism, Janism, Sikhism, do indeed represent anti-brahmanism schools of thot someway or the other.

Regards.

 

[kunjuppu]

suraju,

thank you for your kind post.

yes, you do detect right, re fish, that favourite food of our bong brahmin cousins.

i have addressed kalyan, in 'are we getting extinct....' thread, post #35.

a reply to your post, was almost, along the same lines. so, please forgive me, and be kind enough to peruse my 'challenge' and i am looking forward to your vision for solutions to some of the issues discussed re tambrams here.

btw, some strange company does keep beside you. cassius, brutus - i would be watchful of those. there is nothing worse than followers for the wrong reasons. if this does not make sense, please pass. thanks.

once again, thank you. and bestest of regards.

 

[jayam33]

Hindu Books Universe - Content

 

[ozone]

I wonder what makes certain people who classify themselves amongst the brave and the revolutionary feel threatened so often by the words of others. Looks like they cannot keep that hypocratic braveness inside themselves too long.

 

[kunjuppu]

I wonder what makes certain people who classify themselves amongst the brave and the revolutionary feel threatened so often by the words of others. Looks like they cannot keep that hypocratic braveness inside themselves too long.

??

dear ozone, can you please explain this cryptic remark?

i thought you were among the brave ones here, with a moniker like ozone..and a potential to damage, while at the same time threatened. in my view, that comes close to brave.

here is wikipedia explanation of ozone:

Ozone (play /ˈoʊzoʊn/; O3), or trioxygen, is a triatomic molecule, consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is an allotrope of oxygen that is much less stable than the diatomic allotrope (O2). Ozone in the lower atmosphere is an air pollutant with harmful effects on the respiratory systems of animals and will burn sensitive plants; however, the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere is beneficial, preventing potentially damaging electromagnetic radiation from reaching the Earth's surface.[1][2] Ozone is present in low concentrations throughout the Earth's atmosphere. It has many industrial and consumer applications.

 

[ozone]

??

dear ozone, can you please explain this cryptic remark?

i thought you were among the brave ones here, with a moniker like ozone..and a potential to damage, while at the same time threatened. in my view, that comes close to brave.

here is wikipedia explanation of ozone:

Ozone (play /ˈoʊzoʊn/; O3), or trioxygen, is a triatomic molecule, consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is an allotrope of oxygen that is much less stable than the diatomic allotrope (O2). Ozone in the lower atmosphere is an air pollutant with harmful effects on the respiratory systems of animals and will burn sensitive plants; however, the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere is beneficial, preventing potentially damaging electromagnetic radiation from reaching the Earth's surface.[1][2] Ozone is present in low concentrations throughout the Earth's atmosphere. It has many industrial and consumer applications.

Would replacing the word 'word' with 'company' make it less cryptic for you?

 

[suraju06]

Kunjuppu,

Your post #96:

I am not able to trace the post mentioned by you. Can you please give me a link or the page#? Thanks.

Cheers.