Dear Kunjuppu,
I may be excused for this interjection. As all of us are aware, the brahmins kept the sole monopoly of religion and scriptures to themselves. The other three castes were not allowed the freedom to interpret the scriptures. (There are one or two exceptions to this of course.) This zealously coveted monopoly is what we now regard as our tradition and inheritance.
It is because of the hard work, good work ethics, simplicity, et al, of the other three castes, and most importantly their naivete in believing that the brahmin has a superiority by birth itself, plus their helplessness (till modern times) to revolt against the perceived superiority of brahmins (in my view this is the most appropriate meaning of the term "brahminism") that sustained our society. (Nandanar may be a solitary exception). If the farmers (many of which class was demoted from the vaisya to sudra category over the centuries) had been less hardworking even under below-subsistence levels, less simple, and had a fraction of the ambition and drive which you refer to, the brahmins would have faced acute starvation and decimation long ago. If there had been a level playing field for all perhaps the other castes would have excelled in the brahminic specialisation also. We have the example of one of the backward castes in Kerala some of whom have been traditionally sanskrit scholars, ayurvedic physicians, astrologers etc. Their grasp of Sanskrit was much superior to that of many of the barhmins who could only parrot mantras without understanding their meaning.
I therefore feel that we should not view the above qualities of good work ethics, hard work, and simplicity as something unique to brahmins. Incidentally drive and ambition usually do not go hand-in-hand with simplicity, I think.
Dear Sangom sir,
, I am not able to make out what you mean by tradition and inheritance here. The scriptures are not our tradition and they are not the inheritance of Brahmins alone. There was absolutely no enforced monopoly at any time. If it were there the innate human nature would have demolished all barriers long back to remove that monopoly. I do not think our ancestors were so naïve, self-effacing and generous as you think. If it was just a Brahmins’ religion and a Brahmins’ scripture there can never be a dispute and we wont be posting our arguments here. The large mass of other communities would have just left it to the Brahmins to bother about their religion and their scriptures. It was just convenient for every one to leave the scriptures to the Brahmins in order to pursue their other interests like making money, winning wars, cultivating lands, enjoying life etc. Moreover scriptures are not such treasure troves for an ordinary man to delve deep into them and find their secrets to live a comfortable material life on this earth. Unless you have an inclination to inquire into the so called higher truths you will find them terribly boring. So Brahmins were assigned that particular role because they were willing to sacrifice everything else to acquire that particular knowledge. They built great schools where the Vedas were taught, researched into, debated, interpreted, written down and new insights acquired. All these (teaching, researching, debating, interpreting, writing Sutras and bhashyams etc) requires life long devotion and focused effort to that single purpose and leave little room for other pursuits. There were no restriction imposed on Kshatriyas and Vysyas as far as learning the scriptures was concerned. But majority of the population did not want, did not have the time and inclination to follow this regimen. So in order to continue the tradition and to preserve the knowledge gained the system had to look inward and we had Brahmins teaching Brahmins to the exclusion of others. We are now in different times, at a different place and at a different context. Looking back we can easily accuse Brahmins of monopolizing the scriptures but it will be only a travesty of truth. Human spirit is such that a determined individual will get what he/she wants, however hard the required effort may be. The few exceptions you have mentioned are such determined individuals making it. It is a different matter that there are people who would brand Brahmins as scheming scoundrels from time immemorial and invent conspiracy theories to support their pet hypotheses. I believe I am not arguing with them here.
Moreover Your argument is fundamentally wrong because Vysyas and Kshatriyas were never barred from mastering the scriptures. Please verify your source.
//It is because of the hard work, good work ethics, simplicity, et al, of the other three castes, and most importantly their naivete in believing that the brahmin has a superiority by birth itself, plus their helplessness (till modern times) to revolt against the perceived superiority of brahmins (in my view this is the most appropriate meaning of the term "brahminism") that sustained our society.//
The facts and history do not support your conclusion. The Brahmins were always poor economically and were dependent on others for their livelihood because they pursued knowledge and not wealth. If our ancestors thought Brahmins were superior it was because of their knowledge and sacrifice. Who was helpless? Certainly not the other castes. They controlled the land, wealth and economy and were not helpless as you say. They could have easily used their numerical and economic power to wipe out Brahmins to free the scriptures from their clutches. They did not bother to do that because they did not want the sciptures. So where is your definition of brahminism?
// If the farmers (many of which class was demoted from the vaisya to sudra category over the centuries) had been less hardworking even under below-subsistence levels, less simple, and had a fraction of the ambition and drive which you refer to, the brahmins would have faced acute starvation and decimation long ago. If there had been a level playing field for all perhaps the other castes would have excelled in the brahminic specialisation also.//
I have already answered to this above.
// We have the example of one of the backward castes in Kerala some of whom have been traditionally sanskrit scholars, ayurvedic physicians, astrologers etc. Their grasp of Sanskrit was much superior to that of many of the barhmins who could only parrot mantras without understanding their meaning.//
You are now talking about the Ezhavas of modern times. In these times the rules of the game are very different. So if we have to argue we have to argue on different grounds and on different parameters.
//I therefore feel that we should not view the above qualities of good work ethics, hard work, and simplicity as something unique to brahmins. Incidentally drive and ambition usually do not go I therefore hand-in-hand with simplicity, I think.//
These are besides the matter for discussion in hand. Cheers.
