...Acording to this injunction, the time-old sampradAya of propagation of the Vedas by oral tradition, performance of veda yajnas, and conducting pujas in temples by brahmins exclusively, is NOT to be interfered with by the State. Since as Sangom says, such tradition has the tacit approval of other communities, this tradition that is exclusively managed by brahmins, IMO, SHOULD NOT be delegated to other communities, whatever yogyatAMsham any individual therein might obtain.
This is NOT to say that the other communities should not learn or study the Vedas; only that they cannot chant and perform Vedic rituals, which are in the exclusive realm of the brahmins.
vaNakkam sai.
not too long ago, other communities were specifically barred or did not have the werewithal to study our scriptures. the peshwas, as late as 400 years ago, prescribed molten lead into the ears of any dalit who might even accidentally hear vedic chants.
mercifully, today, anyone, irrespective of caste or nationality can have a peep at the vedas and sink into it as deep as they want, without any fear of punishment.
sometimes, i suspect, that the most ardent vedists are those who are intent on finding the embedded inequalities and racistic ideologies within our scriptures, to undermine the faith in the eyes of many non brahmin hindus, and in the process, veer them towards other religions.
why be second rate hindu, when you can be a first rate mussalman or christian, they ask? do we have any arguements to combat this real or imagined sense of aggrievement?
again, if i understand you correctly, you are ok with other castes learning the vedas, but should not 'chant and perform Vedic rituals, which are in the exclusive realm of the brahmins'.
i am trying to view this statement from the viewpoint of 'other' castes and dalits separately.
not sure if the other castes would care, unless there was some monetary benefit or admin power involved. a good example might be the chettiars, who have no problem building new temples, and let the brahmins do the priestly functions.
but within those nagarathar temples, there are strict rules and hierarchies for the chettiars, which even no brahmin can interfere.it is ok with the brahmins, because it does not directly affect our ecclesiastical functions.
one minor point, that you might not have considered - how to enforce this practice of preventing other castes from publicly performing rituals if they so wish? i am not sure if any policeforce in india will step in to stop a yagna performed by a mudaliar or chettiar, if he or she, so wishes. what do you say?
if we go one step beyond, to the dalits, who form 25% or so of the population, there might be another perspective.
i read somewhere that that within 2 generation in early 1800s, the entire hindu east bengal peasantry which was mostly dalits, was islamized - not by the sword, but by the gentle prodding of sufis, who invited them to an egalitarian faith, which did not differentiate, according to them, between the king and servant.
i just visited chennai, and went to thirupathi. every other mile was a new church, and i was told that these were mainly to attract the dalits.
the preachers too were converted dalits, who did not want anything to do with mainstream hindu casteism anymore. should we as brahmins be bothered about it?
after all, these dalits are doing exactly what you prescribe for them - ie no role in our ecclesiastic rituals. which per you, should be the sole function of those born to the brahmin caste. will we as hindus be able to combat an egalitarian philosophy, with our own stratified and compartmentalized one?
as you prescribe rules, sai, it may be worth your while, also to step through the consequences of each of your mindset edict, particularly in the context of today's world - the reality of mass communication, the sense of entitlement that runs across all castes for their share of the indian pie. and above all, the deadly effect of mass abandonment of the hindu faith and way of life by a sizeable portion of the population.
to sum up, i do not even know, if we have sufficient numbers of brahmins, spread across tamil nadu to bring the best of our traditions to the masses.
would we deny a kripananda warrior to perform a puja because he was a non brahmin?
many a times, i wonder, whether it would do any good to our hindu way of life, ie any good in the long term, by comparmentalizing religious duties as per castes and in the process assume certain functions for the brahmins, even though these are no longer remunerative to sustain a priest's family.
such attitudes appear to me, is going against the grain of today's thinking, which is one of entitlement for all in all. anything else would result, i think, would result only in apathy or antagonism - both of which being inimical to the hindu way of life.
what we need is mass participation and adulation, which i think, can be achieved only through open practice of absolute equality. i suspect the enormous popularity of ayyappan pilgrimage of late, and increasingly spreading to the north, is due to this sense of affinity of ayyappanmars, irrespective of caste or creed. why cannot we extend this to other aspects of hindu faith?
would not broad based opening up of all aspects of hindu religion to those who are interested and have a sense of vocation to dwell deep into the estoricism of our scriptures and assign these to perform public rituals, make sense?
instead of reserving these to a certain caste?
to sum up, i think, as we come up with 'shoulds and musts', it would do good, also to step through the consequences of the same. perhaps the realization of the results of some of our exclusive views, would convince us to abandon the same, and to embrace a more inclusive pan hinduistic approach to life, as opposed to a narrow caste based approach.
my fear, is that otherwise, we brahmins might be left alone, with an empty bag of philosophies with no one else to adhere to. and emtpy temples a phenomenon common enough in east bengal or west punjab.
something to think about seriously.
thank you.
.
eace:
