Meghavarshini,
Since your post is not addressed to anyone in particular, i take the liberty to answer to your post (except the portions that are addressed to Nara sir and Renu specifically). Hope that is ok.
First of, using the term TAMIL before Brahmin changes a lot of things. I don't think T.Bs have been allowed to eat meat for 1000 years so unlike our Bengali or Kashmiri counterparts,
Well, you can read up on the Kapalikas and Kalamukhas who were meat eaters as well as 'brahmin' priests to several communities (esp to trading guilds like nagarathars, gavares, etc). Then there were SSV (chattada srivaishnavas) who served as 'brahmin' priests to several communities -- they were recorded in colonial documents to have been meat-eaters. Now it wud all come down to who are the brahmins today (this is a question which might be in your best interest to explore privately).
vegetarianism as a part of the Satvik regime cannot be called 'broad' or 'nonsense'. Secondly, this new post was written so that an issue, different from the conflict between rituals and the modern-day position of women could be resolved. So, please do not sneer at this attempt, it was meant to be unoriginal.
Nobody called vegetarianism 'broad' or 'nonsense', nor is anyone sneering at anything.
My question was, how do WE define one, not how the Shastrs defined them.
Why do you want WE to define a brahmin?
Now the question was, if one is a born Brahmin or a born chettiyar, must one follow the rules or be a traitor for disgracing the community?
How is one born a chettiyar ??
I discuss 'Brahmins' mainly because they have the 'top' spot and the highest share of religious responsibilities. So much so that even modern Hinduism is called 'Brahminism' by many.
I can only say for myself and what i think. And all i understand is that, there has been
a process of assimilation in which Gods of various regions got absorbed into the religion we call Hinduism today. And that there has been some amount of "take over" also.
Now i really dunno why you think brahmins are considered to have the highest share of religious responsibilities. Perhaps some folks decided to self-appoint themselves that way (or what) ?? Atleast from the writings of George Hart it wud seem that brahmins who started arriving in tamilakam brought rituals upon themselves, to differentiate themselves from the rest. So now if a brahmin has to follow many-many rituals in order to be considered one, what can anyone do about it?
Also, in what manner wud a brahmin be responsible for the religious practices of say, a sculpturer or a weaver ? Obviously none. So it wud seem to me that perhaps brahmins self-appointed themselves in certain ways (as those with the highest share of religious responsibilities) though the rest of the population did not exactly accept it (atleaset am sure that sculpturers and weavers have no role for a brahmin during the process of carrying out their craft).
Also, am not aware that modern hinduism is called brahmanism. Quoting your sources wud be helpful.
There was some gentleman who took great pleasure in critiquing my 'defination' of Brahmin life. If priests are Brahmin because they memorized mantras then I suppose even I could become one(casteless woman as I am)!!! I mentioned theological and philosophical knowledge because, well I don't think we can use definations from the Shastras ALL the time. But, that only me. Broad as the question may seem, if one had to tell a forigner(ie one unacquainted and unengaged with the Indian context discussed) what would one say, in detail? I'm not talking about a mere sociological idea(in India, there are a bunch of people who lalala!!) but, o wise ones, I am asking for YOUR opinions!!!
There are no wise ones in this forum so i suppose you shd not be asking for opinions here.
From a fool's pov i can say this -- either you give your foreigner friend "your" version of hindusim (which is what most hindus do anyways) or you give him the version of the shastras (which most hindus try to obfuscate anyways).
O AND WHY HASN'T ANYONE ADDRESSED THE MAIN ISSUE??? IS ONE MARRY A 'BRAHMIN' WHO WASN'T BORN ONE?? HEY, DON'T GIVE ME ANSWERS LIKE 'INTER-CASTE MARRIAGES ARE RIGHT, WE SHOULD FINISH OFF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM ETC' Just tell me if it is possible to call a non-Brahmin a Brahmin.
Your question is not clear. But anyways, can you please mention your basis of repeating this marriage question ? I mean, what do you have in mind? Why are you asking questions on inter-caste marriages repeatedly?
THIS POST IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE SYSTEM- THE QUESTION IS, CAN TI BE INCLUSIVE AND THUS, BECOME HARMLESS?
You asked so many questions. As regards being inclusive, let me ask you one simple (counter) question -- Let us say you are a tamil 'brahmin' whose kula deivam is a Murugan temple. If Murugan, a non-vedic deity, is your kula deivam, can you be a brahmin? What about those whose kula deivams are non-vedic deities like Muneeswaran, Durga, Kali and temples of Shiva ? Can they be called brahmins? How will "you" define a brahmin?