@ Sri Sangom - Debate is a BIG word, I would say "Ask questions" to the maths =)
"I agree that anyone can ask a valid question to a matham but to engage in a debate with the head of the matham (or a representative nominated by him) and win them over to accept the questioner's pov seems to me to be impossible. Do you honestly feel you can do that?"
I live in Mumbai. But such a challenge is a serious thing to consider for anyone within our community, I feel. It wouldn't be necessary to go with the fervor of "debating and winning", but more like in a mood to "ask questions".
*See below in what manner I would ask it (hypothetically).
"I get a feeling that you mix philosophy with the social rules, including varna and jaati classifications. IMO philosophies have had nothing to do with the latter."
You mean what was written in scriptures was not meant to be practiced but merely called "philosophy"? That doesn't make sense to me.
I clearly understand the distinction between philosophy, and social rules - this is why I am opposed to using the term "brahminism" to speak of caste discrimination because the varna system was a construct of our society (as a whole), its not like brahmins assigned everyone their "caste". It seems to have evolved by itself as how we would consider occupations in today's world.
Ill-treatment too, has been practiced by all castes in previlaged positions - and that is just central to human tendencies.
Today, even Dalit leaders in power are misusing state funds, indirectly being the reason for the poverty of people. Should this also be called "brahminism"? The biases under which TN society is in, with its politics and the sense of guilt by which people like Nara seemed to have grown in for being brahmin is what makes them accept such a worldview to see every single mistake of our civilization as starting and ending with us.
Time to become more mature and level-headed for people like Nara, to understand ill-treatment in society, in any form, for what it is.
"And today, if you see, nobody - even brahmins - learn the actual philosophical texts like brahmasutra and its bhashyas which are the core texts of the "vedanta" (interestingly, you know the word vedanta can also mean "end - demise - of the veda"!)."
That makes little sense because none of the vedanta commentators, nor Adi Shankaracharya said the vedas had to be abandoned/destroyed/considered obsolete. They only claimed the contary.The only meaning that has come out of it seems to say it was the conclusion of the vedas.
But this etymology is interesting in how it becomes able for us to translate it as two completely opposite things. =)
"Within that vedic religion, the six "darsanas" got a place but none of them challenged the caste system-in fact they could not do so while still claiming adherence to vedism."
What is caste system? Today our society has people of various professions, should we challenge this and say all people should be of one profession, or without profession? Obviously, it makes less sense to fight against a social order, when its intergral to society's functioning.
What matters from a moral pov however is giving people chance and how we treat them.
"If your objection is to the terms used by Shri Nara which makes you call for a split and group formation, without defeating Shri Nara in debate and making him accept your pov"
If Nara can point out why the manisha panchakam was even carried forward in "evil brahminism" culture, he would have a point against me. I clearly pointed how the meanings of caste in certain places is itself not heriditary, and it was placed for occupations in society - not to ill-treat.
If Nara can explain why caste ill-treatment ought to be called "brahminism" when so many others (every upper caste) practiced it, he would have a point against me. So where is the "debate"?
There is really no debate with Nara. He spells his bias out openly without seeing how casteism (ill-treating on basis of caste) exists throughout Indian society - and doesn't even find reference in many philosophical works of brahmins. Clearly, their philosophy was their message to the world - only Nara can explain why he wouldn't call that "brahminism", but even a NB upper caste ill-treating a dalit as "Brahminism".
"one, that maneeshaapanchakam (mp) is as much an authoritative scriptural text like the vedas and all, and two, Adisankara could not have contradicted himself because it would then make him look silly, and hence it is not possible."
Which contradictions exist? I didn't say there wouldn't be any contradictions because it would "make him look silly", but because the matter of his philosophy had/has been throughly studied/debated for ages, which makes it less likely for it have internal contradictions. In anycase, since you said so point out what you think these are.
Further, I point to the Manisha Panchakam
for us to take it as important to carry out the message to fight casteism in the very platform of othrodoxy.
"But to debate with the head of a matham, and to establish your pov, this is not at all sufficient. When I saw your suggestion for such a debate, I expected that you are well-versed in our scriptures, religious lores and the tarkasaastra, the rules of which have to be followed in any religious debate of value."
What is a debate? Is a string of questions, which critically question an idea of the matham head, a debate? This is what I thought myself (and anyone here) should consider doing. When engaging in all out debate, there is a matter of victory and defeat. Going like a discipile with queries, and putting your answers to the math like queries makes them see your pov and what you understand, without them thinking you came with a challenege.
If anyone is of course confident of their knowledge of the scriptures they could enter a debate.
"Perhaps if you engage in any clash of ideas with the present mainstream mathams, religious heads etc., it will be necessary also to establish the importance of mp first, before going further."
*On what basis does one scripture become more important than the other? Was Adi Shankaracharya falsely speaking when he composed the manisha panchakam? If not, how is it that we don't employ treating people as individuals and not based on their caste identity, it in our practice of daily life?
These questions is what I would ask, or I would think other should be asking within our community.
"For example, you say. "any philosophical text written by past brahmins because not doing that is to ignore what others have said (in the past from which we quote)"and then cite only BG. It is appropriate to give at least a few instances of the philosophical texts, past brahmins, etc."
Because what I speak is free to check up in the net =)
Since you ask:
Varna (Hinduism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are other instances too - Chanakya for instance taking a boy of the most humblest origins to make him king would have made do so only after believing that it was possible. If he was a casteist bigot, he wouldn't have tried his revenge against the Nandas through Chandragupta. Its also an openly acknowledged fact that Dalits of today come from lineages that were historically of various castes - they became "dalits" due to their economic, and thereby social conditions.
"I am not very clear as to how "people" doing certain professions becoming "communities" and whether these communities were the euivalents of today's castes. A little elaboration will be of help pl."
In earlier days a profession related to not just a job, but a way of living. This is what formed seperate cultures and thus communities. Take Rajputs, Thevars (kshatriyas) or Iyers or Chettiyars (any groups) etc. Right from the houses, surroundings to what they regarded important, to eating they were different. These formed communities on the basis of what they shared in common - which became community boundaries. I thought you should have figured that out.
Regards,
Vivek.
