Define a Brahmin please!!

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

..who wear a Thiruman Srichurnam (Namam is apparently a derogatory term, I was asked by a Swamiji not to use it) when required to??

Sad to think that terms traditionally used in the past are now considered derogatory. Afaik, the terms ayya garu, parpana varu, are used commonly and reverentially till date. But we are told by some that we must not use the term parpana varu and must instead use ‘brahmana’ because the term parpana varu is derogatory (no one knows who designated it as derogatory….and seriously why wud those who are traditionally parpana want to be called brahmana). Now even the term “namam’ is considered derogatory and am left wondering how and why is the term derogatory??

Well, Meghavarshini, over to you now. You have received plenty of responses. What are your views on all these posts?

 

[Yamaka]

Why?

Curious to know more about her!

 

[Yamaka]

"Well, Meghavarshini, over to you now. You have received plenty of responses. What are your views on all these posts?" --happyhindu asked.

Good question, IMO.​

 

[renuka]

Yes Megha,

Please shower us with your response.Cant wait to contrast and compare with many posts here.

 

[happyhindu]

Curious to know more about her!

Dunno why but am thinking Meghavarshini is mentioning some points so similar to 2 posters in the thread What makes one a Tamil Brahmin these days? Quite obviously not a new poster.

Anyways, lets hear what he or she has to say (i mean lets focus on the points raised by the poster and not on the poster himself / herself).

 

[renuka]

I guess its "Svadharma" Samsthapanarthaya Sambhavati Dine Dine.
and "Wag the Dog" Syndrome.

 

[sangom]

Brahmana and Music in traditional Hinduism

I came across the following statements in the book "Music in the Vedas : Its Magico-Religious Significance", by G.U. Thitte. Presented here for further discussion by knowledgeable members some of whom claim to be both brahmins and musicians:—

"In the bṛhaspati smṛti the profession of musician along with some other professions is treated to be of lower social standard, and a person belonging to any of those professions is said to be equal to a niṣāda.


गान्धर्वॊ लॊहकारश्च सैनिकस्तन्तुवायकः ।
चक्रोपजीवि रजकः कितवस्तस्करस्तथा॥ 11||

सैनिको वर्णिकश्चैव निषादेन समाः स्मृता:॥ 12॥
—बृहस्पति स्मृति, प्रायश्चित्तखण्ड, 11f

Further it is told that if a brāhmaṇa lives by any of these professions, he will have to take an expiation (14). It is then added that a brāhmaṇa, practising music etc. is to be considered as a brāhmaṇa caṇḍāḷa or even as a killer of brāhmaṇa (14). This passage can throw sufficient light on the social position of musicians. According to auśānasmṛti (sic), 19, a person, born out of the secret intercourse of a śūdra man and queen becomes a 'dyer' and the son of a dyer and a vaiśya woman becomes dancer and singer (nṛpāyāṃ śūdrataścauryājjāto rañjaka uccyate/ vaiśyāyāṃ rañjakājjāto nartako gāyako bhavet//). Thus a dancer or a singer is considered to be an illegal progeny of persons of low standard."

Since we are discussing the topic "Define a Brahmin", these guidelines from our smṛtis may also be relevant.

 

[tbs]

hi sangom sirm
many well known singers/dancers are from illegal progeny of of low standard...they are some where refered as KOOTHADI....i dont

want give much more living examples of this category....many are illegal proganies.......


regards
tbs

 

[happyhindu]

Brahmana and Music in traditional Hinduism

I came across the following statements in the book "Music in the Vedas : Its Magico-Religious Significance", by G.U. Thitte. Presented here for further discussion by knowledgeable members some of whom claim to be both brahmins and musicians:—

"In the bṛhaspati smṛti the profession of musician along with some other professions is treated to be of lower social standard, and a person belonging to any of those professions is said to be equal to a niṣāda.


गान्धर्वॊ लॊहकारश्च सैनिकस्तन्तुवायकः ।
चक्रोपजीवि रजकः कितवस्तस्करस्तथा॥ 11||

सैनिको वर्णिकश्चैव निषादेन समाः स्मृता:॥ 12॥
—बृहस्पति स्मृति, प्रायश्चित्तखण्ड, 11f

Further it is told that if a brāhmaṇa lives by any of these professions, he will have to take an expiation (14). It is then added that a brāhmaṇa, practising music etc. is to be considered as a brāhmaṇa caṇḍāḷa or even as a killer of brāhmaṇa (14). This passage can throw sufficient light on the social position of musicians. According to auśānasmṛti (sic), 19, a person, born out of the secret intercourse of a śūdra man and queen becomes a 'dyer' and the son of a dyer and a vaiśya woman becomes dancer and singer (nṛpāyāṃ śūdrataścauryājjāto rañjaka uccyate/ vaiśyāyāṃ rañjakājjāto nartako gāyako bhavet//). Thus a dancer or a singer is considered to be an illegal progeny of persons of low standard."

Since we are discussing the topic "Define a Brahmin", these guidelines from our smṛtis may also be relevant.

Dear Sir,

This is really interesting. So this wud mean that brahmins were forbidden from becoming singers and dances in the smrithis. What joy-killers these smrithis are really...

Am thinking of Saint Thyagaraja whose occupation was singing. Surely he required no expiation...

Were Aushana Smrithi and Brihaspati Smrithi followed by anyone in the south?

Regards.

 

[renuka]

The field has been cleared and ploughed,watered and seeds are being sowed and now the Rhythms Gonna Get You..Tonite!!!

 

[happyhindu]

hi sangom sirm
many well known singers/dancers are from illegal progeny of of low standard...they are some where refered as KOOTHADI....i dont

want give much more living examples of this category....many are illegal proganies.......


regards
tbs

Karunanidhi is supposedly the "koothadi" (as he has been referred to in this forum) from the isai vellalar community. We do not know how much truth there is in such stories. It cud be another of those urban-legends created to tarnish Karunanidhi by some specific people.

There seem to be 2 versions. One version says the isai vellalars are those who play musical instruments in temples (their Kerala equivalents are the Maarans). Another version says sections of isai vellalars are devadasi outputs. Perhaps these things depended on what was the system followed in a given region.

I can't think of all temple musicians being devadasi products in all parts of south-india or even within tamilnadu. Perhaps the same system was not followed across all regions of tamilnadu...dunno.

 

[renuka]

hi sangom sirm
many well known singers/dancers are from illegal progeny of of low standard...they are some where refered as KOOTHADI....i dont

want give much more living examples of this category....many are illegal proganies.......


regards
tbs

Dear Tbs,

However a persons origin is no one is actually a low born.
I think you know that too since Jeevaatma is wedded to Paramaatma who is illicit and who is low born?

Didnt think you will think this too.

 

[Harini]

Will you please elaborate your POV here?

These are not my POV but are the POV of sage Thiruvalluvar!! These are accepted by your friend Mr.MK Iyer as Universal definitions. There are many people who have aberrations of varying level to the ideals demanded by அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர்மற் றெவ்வுயிர்க்கும் செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுக லான். But the pursuit on these ideals is there predominantly only with those who are Brahmins by birth. There is no need to change such definitions just because there are aberrations in the Brahmin Community. Shifting the goal post is not the right thing to do!

There are many sub-sects in Brahmins, each evolved by many independent pursuit of attaining the ideals. Some will say Music is the path for reaching the ideal and some other may do it by refraining from music. One tries to take the path that appeals to his/her mind and the reason நிலத்தியல்பால் நீர்திரிந் தற்றாகும் மாந்தர்க்கு இனத்தியல்ப தாகும் அறிவு.

 

[happyhindu]

These are not my POV but are the POV of sage Thiruvalluvar!! These are accepted by your friend Mr.MK Iyer as Universal definitions. There are many people who have aberrations of varying level to the ideals demanded by அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர்மற் றெவ்வுயிர்க்கும் செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுக லான். But the pursuit on these ideals is there predominantly only with those who are Brahmins by birth. There is no need to change such definitions just because there are aberrations in the Brahmin Community. Shifting the goal post is not the right thing to do!

There are many sub-sects in Brahmins, each evolved by many independent pursuit of attaining the ideals. Some will say Music is the path for reaching the ideal and some other may do it by refraining from music. One tries to take the path that appeals to his/her mind and the reason நிலத்தியல்பால் நீர்திரிந் தற்றாகும் மாந்தர்க்கு இனத்தியல்ப தாகும் அறிவு.

I do not know how Thiruvalluvar's commentaries can apply to present-day brahmins.

Whatever Thiruvalluvar wrote wrt Parpans, Anthanars, etc wud apply to those who were considered parpanas in Thiruvalluvar's time.

Isn't it an irony that Thiruvalluvar's community (the valluvars) are no longer considered Par-Panar or parpanas today...

Sometimes when i read abt Pallava period literature, i can only imagine how exalted the Valluvars must have been at that time.....am able to imagine the anger some such sections have wrt to their perceived stealth of culture, temple positions, etc....thankfully modernity will even out such differences eventually....

 

[amala]

Thank you Renu, Raghy mama, Kunjuppu mama and Ravi. Will defnitely try to post more.

 

[Nara]

These are not my POV but are the POV of sage Thiruvalluvar!! These are accepted by your friend Mr.MK Iyer as Universal definitions.

Harini, in your books (a) அந்தணர் means Brahmin and (b) Mr. MK is an Iyer. So, that makes Mr. MK an அந்தணர் .

BTW, more than a year ago there was a long discussion about what Thiruvalluvar meant by the term அந்தணர். There is enough internal evidence even within Thirukkural itself to show that he did not refer to Brahmins.

Cheers!

 

[meghavarshini]

sorry for the delay

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, 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.

So, Sri Nara, Brahmin is a position, not a mere title or surname. I personally feel that there are some responsibilities associated with being 'Brahmin'. My question was, how do WE define one, not how the Shastrs defined them. 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? 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. Not very different from defining a ruler post-French revolution in France. Serfs were freed and given better options and people of all classes rose to positions of power. I'm not suggesting that we need a revolution or even some massive change, that is not the objective of this post. I just asked a question but it seems there are no answers.

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!!!

STOP QUOTING(unless being origial is impossible)! I have no positions because I am looking for answers.
Sri Renuka- I like the idea of becoming a Kshatriya. I'm sure I'm one because rajo guna is all I have!! But, if I must believe some, I should be killing all of it and try to generate Satvik guna. No fair!(this is meant as a joke, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON IT)

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. THIS POST IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE SYSTEM- THE QUESTION IS, CAN TI BE INCLUSIVE AND THUS, BECOME HARMLESS?

 

[kunjuppu]

hi sangom sirm
many well known singers/dancers are from illegal progeny of of low standard...they are some where refered as KOOTHADI....i dont

want give much more living examples of this category....many are illegal proganies.......


regards
tbs

illegal progeny of of low standard?

are we talking of human being here?

tambrams?

more of us would fit in this category, than any other group. my opinion.

 

[amala]

I may be wrong and i apologise for speaking on tbs behalf but I understood illegal progeny as illegitimate children born out of wedlock. Perhaps their mother is devadasi and father the local landed gentry?

 

[tbs]

hi amala,
i thought the same....it happened many centuries...still in modern world versions are different...if we go into deep detail life of

our many cine actors/actress and many gandarva vidya performers are from these categories....thank u amala for ur explanations...


regards
tbs

 

[kunjuppu]

I may be wrong and i apologise for speaking on tbs behalf but I understood illegal progeny as illegitimate children born out of wedlock. Perhaps their mother is devadasi and father the local landed gentry?

dear amala,

you are probabrbly correct here.

but i have a big problem when someone addresses a group of people as 'illegal progeny of low standard'

illegala? who is to say what is legal or otherwise?

low standards? who defines what a low standard is.

to me the above smacks of usual brahmin arrogance and i am unable sit still and let the remark go unchallenged.

i have nothing aginst the person, but only the remark. it is simply not a fair assessmetn of any human being.

i only know too well, to which groups this is appliced, i would rather start with the tambrams, ie if any group can be termed 'illegal progeny with low standard', i, born a tambram, am ready to stand up and be counted, along with many other tambrams i know.

 

[ShivKC]

dear amala,

but i have a big problem when someone addresses a group of people as 'illegal progeny of low standard'

illegala? who is to say what is legal or otherwise?

.

illegalA? that 'A" was a fine pepper spiced up in your style.

i think we should give benefit of doubt to sh.tbs. his... .... dotted style of writing.

i feel , he has a good view to share, but bit not with creamed words like few elites here. he is indeed a nice person socially!!

 

[kunjuppu]

illegalA? that 'A" was a fine pepper spiced up in your style.

i think we should give benefit of doubt to sh.tbs. his... .... dotted style of writing.

i feel , he has a good view to share, but bit not with creamed words like few elites here. he is indeed a nice person socially!!

shiv,

i will go along with you.

tbs, sorry for any offence perceived. none was meant to you personally. please understand that.

regards.....

 

[happyhindu]

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?

 

[tbs]

shiv,

i will go along with you.

tbs, sorry for any offence perceived. none was meant to you personally. please understand that.

regards.....

hi K sir,
its okay.........its not my word...just i explained the words of sangom sir....according to smrithi....i refined with added spice to

the original...............i dont have any problem.....take it easy....

regards
tbs