how some namboori chekkans are solving their problems re finding a spouse

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

If a "liberal" changes his lifestyle, it is deemed changing with times.

If an "orthodox" does, it is deemed hypocritical or opportunistic.
...

I wonder whether this is deliberate or out of sincere ignorance.

A liberal is one who advocates change, so when they change their life-style, they are doing what they advocate, putting money where their mouth is -- this is the very antithesis of being hypocritical.

On the contrary, the orthodox wax eloquent the greatness of tradition, and yet reject it in favor of modern education and life style, on their own accord and with gusto. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Therefore, I reject this false equivalency.

BTW, I don't find fault with this hypocrisy of the orthodoxy, I sympathize with it and in fact I would like to encourage it, as this will hasten the inevitable demise of Brahminism. This will benefit the Brahmins most. Opposing this trend is what I would characterize as Brahmin-hatred.

Cheers!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

A liberal is one who advocates change, so when they change their life-style, they are doing what they advocate, putting money where their mouth is -- this is the very antithesis of being hypocritical.

On the contrary, the orthodox wax eloquent the greatness of tradition, and yet reject it in favor of modern education and life style, on their own accord and with gusto. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Therefore, I reject this false equivalency.

Who is coming up with labels such as "liberals" and "orthodox" in this forum? Isn't it the self-styled "liberals" themselves who come up with such labels? My charge is how can these "liberals" accuse the "orthodox" of following orthodoxy and rejecting orthodoxy at the same time.

I wonder whether this is deliberate or out of sincere ignorance.

Lack of understanding of others' POV often leads to such opinions.

 

[Nara]

... My charge is how can these "liberals" accuse the "orthodox" of following orthodoxy and rejecting orthodoxy at the same time.

KB, the charge is why are the orthodox directing their progeny away from their orthodox ways about which they make superlative claims.

Lack of understanding of others' POV often leads to such opinions.

If you want to take a jab like this then you have an obligation to explain why. I did, with respect to my statement.

Anyway, KB, you seem to pick and choose, and mostly ignore the main point, which is, the equivalency you try to impose on liberals and the orthodoxy -- in whatever way you or others may want to define -- is bogus, i.e. B - O - G - G - U - S.

Cheers!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

KB, the charge is why are the orthodox directing their progeny away from their orthodox ways about which they make superlative claims.

It just means that the people whom you accuse as being orthodox are not being orthodox at all. In fact, they are being liberal. That they are allowing their progeny to choose what is best for them.

KB, you seem to pick and choose, and mostly ignore the main point, which is, the equivalency you try to impose on liberals and the orthodoxy

Picking and choosing?! Didn't you pick and choose only the two points of the three I mentioned in my post (the third being, "If an "orthodox" does not, it is deemed dogmatic.")

The "liberals" accuse the orthodox as follows -

Strictly following religion - dogmatic.
Not strictly following it - hypocritical.

So I think the "liberals" are not being honest in their criticisms.

 

[Nara]

It just means that the people whom you accuse as being orthodox are not being orthodox at all. In fact, they are being liberal. That they are allowing their progeny to choose what is best for them.

KB, I have been to the deep crevices of orthodoxy, been close to the the top most of what nobody can mistake to be anything but the orthodoxy. If these are not orthodox, nobody is. I am talking of heads of Brahminical Mathams, and highly decorated Vedic scholars. Without a single exception, all their progeny are in the modern world, just a handful with one leg in modernity and one in orthodoxy.

My wife and I are family friends with a son of a Jeeyar in a major SV matham. They are presenty living in NJ and their kids were raised eating meat and they are now married to Americans. This is an extreme case, I do concede, but I am yet to come across an orthodox Brahmin who sent his kids to anything other than modern education unless they didn't have any other choice.

So, define orthodoxy anyway you like, the charge is still valid.

Picking and choosing?! Didn't you pick and choose only the two points of the three I mentioned in my post (the third being, "If an "orthodox" does not, it is deemed dogmatic.")

If I missed anything significant, I apologize. Please state it clearly and I will address it as best as I can or concede your point. But, the kind of choosing I find from you is the wholesale type.

BTW, I do criticize the orthodox on the grounds you suggest and there is nothing hypocritical about it. If the orthodox is sincere they are indeed dogmatic, and if they are not sincere, that are indeed hypocritical. What is complex about this, I know not.

Once again, even though I criticize the orthodox for these anomalies, I only have love for them as they are trying to lead their lives as best they can. It is the enablers who want them to continue in their ways that I fault and despise.

Cheers!

 

[subbudu1]

I am posting some views from Kanchi Paramacharya on the fall of brahminism and would like to know your views
Who is Responsible for the Decay of Varna Dharma? from the Chapter "The Vedic Religion And Varna Dharma", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:

I am posting some views from Kanchi Paramacharya on the fall of brahminism and would like to know your views
Who is Responsible for the Decay of Varna Dharma? from the Chapter "The Vedic Religion And Varna Dharma", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:



Dear Shri Subbudu,

I observe that HH Shri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathy, (CS) the auothor has omitted one vital aspect from the whole discussion given above. That is, the relevance of the Vedas and Sastras, the chanting of the vedas and performance of sacrifices, etc., as perceived in modern times. It it true that the priesthood of the vedic society was somehow able to convince itself and also make the other three wings of the vedic society (the Kshatriya, the Vaisya and the Sudra) also get convinced, or at least, to accept that the duties of the priesthood were most sacrosanct and necessary for the well-being of the world and that any questioning of this axiomatic truth will invite drastic punishments. But today, the situation is drastically different and, there will be only a small percentage of brahmins who sincerely and honestly believe the above axiom, imo. This change, according to me, is due in the main to the increase in Man's scientific knowledge and the widening of his rational horizon.

Let us assume, as CS has done, that the brahmins (of TN) had not been lured by the "mess of pottage" and had stuck to the way of life prescribed by the Sastras, and led a simple life, do you expect that all the other castes/varnas would necessarily and without fail, have taken the cue from those brahmins and stuck to the old-fashioned social equations within the Hindu society and also would have continued to perform their Sastra-divined occupation/avocations? I for one, do not at all think so.

On the contrary, it is my considered view that the Tamil brahmins from the present-day TN and Kerala (Palghat) must have been quite aware of the changes taking place gradually all around, and hence they sensed that their time-honoured vedadhyayanam, teaching of vedas, yajanam, yaajanam, etc., would not any longer be acceptable to the society at large and their future would be quite bleak if they believe the sastraic injunctions implicitly, and so they decided to stray away into other (and non-brahmanic) ways of livelihood to avoid starvation. Possibly, the lure for (more) money and creature comforts might have lured away more and more brahmins in this way, as time went by.

It is also an unsubstantiated statement when CS says, "The Brahmin had been an ideal for them in all that is noble, but how he strayed from the path of dharma; and following his example they too gave up their traditional vocations that had brought them happiness and contentment, and left their native village to settle in towns." There is no evidence to support this which is at best the author's subjective opinion.



It is very difficult to substantiate the statement in the first sentence above. What evidence is there to show that the brahmins had been using all their "mental faculties" for the welfare of society and not for his own selfish advancemen? From what little is known, the Brahmins were doing yajanam and yaajanam mainly and for that purpose they learnt the veda/Vedas and also created specialties under the priestly occupation
so as to make the whole sacrifice a more and more elaborate and intricate, not easily understood, ritual. This perhaps helped the Brahmins of those days to convince the gullible public that the vedic sacrifices were the actual pillars which supported the very existence of the universe (yajñādbhavanti bhūtāni…etc.) and the Brahmins, in turn, tended to believe in that story as truth. In fact, however, the Brahmins lived as a community of priests, held as the highest layer of society and called “bhūsuras” (devas in this mortal world) and were supported and financed by the other two “dvija” castes.
Where did the Brahmin use his mental faculty for the “welfare of society”, except in his make-believe justification of his own existence and superiority to others (BTW, I am glad that CS himself admits this superiority in these words, “But, on the other hand, though he spoke the language of equality, he kept aloof from other castes thinking himself to be superior to them.”)


Is there any scientific evidence for any of the above averments, except the authority of CS himself?


Here I find CS admitting to the waning of the influence of the old brahministic influence on the other forward castes due to the influence of science and advent of modern technology. But admitting that would defeat his agenda and so he tries to qualify his unwitting admissions with subsequent saving clauses.



CS says practically what the self-loathing, anti-brahmin, neo non-brahmin lobby here in this Forum, say often, viz., blaming the Brahmins themselves for their downfall. But ideas like an ideal society ruled by the Dharma is a product of his idealistic imagination.



I wonder whether Brahmins could have been any more capable of being “a bit more careful than they about the performance of religious duties”, given the difficulties in modern urban living conditions.

Good set of arguments. Coming to think of it, the lack of availability of brides for our brahmins , the blame lies entirely on the orthodox society who refuse to give their daughters in marriage to their priests. An irony it is, but rather according to the script. The solution is there at hand as you say, and that I feel may soon be pursued. Our Tambram are a bit slow to change, but they do change like the others, but reluctantly and with a lot of pretensions.

I would like to see the reply of a CS supporter to your views.

 

[sangom]

dear sangom,

as you have pointed out again in post #21, and that query, which i have repeatedly asked kalabhairavan: re how his great grandfather would view the current brahminness of KB?

this is not meant to be a finger pointing question, but one of finding common ground. am i right in believing that KB practises the same form of brahminism as his great grandfather. i would like to compare notes, and cannot fathom, how this could be termed as insulting or anti brahmin or even putting down the brahmins.

from what i know and seen, my paternal great grandfather was probably a nobody in chathapuram village, did not go to school, did not posess any education, leather goods and was satisfied to roam around the village and live off the generosity of the relations. probably he did his sandhi and its equivalent, thrice a day. had a kudumi.

my paternal grandfather, was a clerk, passed 10th, had a turban to cover his kudumi, went to bombay and madras, died at 30 of TB.

my father had cropped hair, wore leather, enjoyed film music and dramas and did his sandhi once a day. that was his committment to brahminism.

personally, i did kiriyais for my parents, maternal grandparents at kasi, gaya. dropped using poonal long ago, as i felt i will be unable to reconcile my life values with what is expected of the cross thread. i did not wish to pass on the process to my children, when i did not practise it myself, quite different from many of my relatives. my children consider themselves hindus, casteless but hindus nevertheless.

i have no hangups about describing myself such.

i am requesting kalabhairavan, an identity admission, along the same lines. because, i feel, that there may be marginal differences, but not much, in practice. at the most, his lifestyle might resemble that of my father, but definitely not of my great grand father. and definitely, not of HIS ggf. both our ggf probably had similar values, and could relate to each other, but would not be able to relate to their great grandsons today.

thank you.

Dear Kunjuppu,

I get the impression that Shri KB, like many other members here, follows some tail-end rites, rituals and practices from out of the detailed list prescribed by the Sastras, and they then arrogate to themselves the position of being 100% brahmins. They then think that the brahmins (? according to their view) who suggest liberal outlook and changes with the times are enemies of brahmins and since, in their imagination, they represent the true brahmins, their enemies too. This, I feel, is the root cause of all the animosity, intolerance to differing pov, bigotry, etc., exhibited by them. Such members (people) probably expect that brahmins must follow the rules considered good by them; in this respect they will ideally fit the position occupied by the ancient authors of the various Dharma Sastras, imo

Just to imitate you, I (a neo non-brahmin!) give below a summary of my paternal ancestors:

Greatgrandfather :— a small time vaideekan (most possibly, because no reliable account is available today and the elders have all left this world), always stricken in poverty, large family of siblings and 5 or 6 children; though his father made some forays into contractor's work (non-brahmin way of life) and lived very well for some years, he lost much of the moneys he made and left practically nothing for his sons. Nothing is known about how orthodox and/or religious he was; most probably must have had a kudumi and must have performed sandhya somewhat regularly, done tarpanams and sraaddham without fail, imo.

Grandfather :— Youngest of three sons and two daughters. Studied up to Matriculation with great difficulty and selfless help of his elder brothers. Took up the job of clerk in the Revenue Settlement Office. Married a girl from Erachakulam (KK Dt.) settled down in Trivandrum, relocated to TVPM with his in-laws, got his B.A., L.T., and got the job of High School teacher. Was a good sanskrit scholar, lover of books and performed Sandhya, tarpanams and Sraaddhams. Not overly orthodox or carried away by Bhakti except for his almost regular evening visit to the Ganapathi Temple.

Father :— Though born to a reasonably well-placed father and was not plagued by poverty and all that, he was probably weak in studies, passed SSLC but did not study further. Since father was earning he could get married to a girl from an equally placed family. Since father-in-law also was somewhat above poverty, he did not try for a job sincerely and at last had to accept the job of clerk in the Anchal Department of the erstwhile Travancore State, after the demise of both his father and fil.

Myself :—Grew up as a religious tabra. inherited the love for books and reading from my grandfather. reading all sorts of books including those on Buddhism, atheistic books and science, set me thinking about my (Hindu) religion and other religions as well. After years of thinking, I have come to the conclusion that God is unknowable to human capacity and religions are not pointers to that God. As an agnostic I am not a practising brahmin.

 

[subbudu1]

dear sangom,

as you have pointed out again in post #21, and that query, which i have repeatedly asked kalabhairavan: re how his great grandfather would view the current brahminness of KB?

this is not meant to be a finger pointing question, but one of finding common ground. am i right in believing that KB practises the same form of brahminism as his great grandfather. i would like to compare notes, and cannot fathom, how this could be termed as insulting or anti brahmin or even putting down the brahmins.

from what i know and seen, my paternal great grandfather was probably a nobody in chathapuram village, did not go to school, did not posess any education, leather goods and was satisfied to roam around the village and live off the generosity of the relations. probably he did his sandhi and its equivalent, thrice a day. had a kudumi.

my paternal grandfather, was a clerk, passed 10th, had a turban to cover his kudumi, went to bombay and madras, died at 30 of TB.

my father had cropped hair, wore leather, enjoyed film music and dramas and did his sandhi once a day. that was his committment to brahminism.

personally, i did kiriyais for my parents, maternal grandparents at kasi, gaya. dropped using poonal long ago, as i felt i will be unable to reconcile my life values with what is expected of the cross thread. i did not wish to pass on the process to my children, when i did not practise it myself, quite different from many of my relatives. my children consider themselves hindus, casteless but hindus nevertheless.

i have no hangups about describing myself such.

i am requesting kalabhairavan, an identity admission, along the same lines. because, i feel, that there may be marginal differences, but not much, in practice. at the most, his lifestyle might resemble that of my father, but definitely not of my great grand father. and definitely, not of HIS ggf. both our ggf probably had similar values, and could relate to each other, but would not be able to relate to their great grandsons today.

thank you.

True the fact that orthodox here cut their hair leaving no room for kudumi would itself have jolted their ancestors. Right from shraddham to Upanayanam to death ceremonies to daily prayers all these have been given up in parts , modified to that degree which our ancestors would have considered unbearable.y
Mainly the orthodox have to convince themselves that they are still brahmins as per tradition.

 

[sangom]

The paramacharya blames all brahmins. He does not distinguish among brahmins as liberal, orthodox, modern, orthodox neo modern etc. He talks about caste dharma. His view is that the downfall of the hindu society, which includes brahmins, is caused by brahmins themselves who abandoned their caste dharma. I do not think Subbudu agrees with this statement. If he does, then he must hold himself and the non-orthodox brahmins the most responsible.

Shri Kalabhairavan,

I agree with you that the Kanchi Acharya (CS) blames all brahmins who have strayed away even a bit from the Sastra-prescribed way of life for brahmins. And this straying or shift had started happening right during the British Colonial rule, even as per CS himself. So, all the brahmins of the last few generations are to be blamed.

Now you seem to hold the opinion that people like you who appear to claim to follow some part of the brahmin rites and routine, are less to blame because the extend of blame will be on a scale, in proportion to the extent of divergence from the Sastra-prescribed norms. I can tell you what the life of a brahmin will be today if he decides to completely follow the Sastras; but any such person will not be able to take up any 10 to 4 work routine. At best he/she can work as an adviser during the spare time he/she will be able to snatch, but the Sastras recommend that such spare time should be devoted by the true brahmana in Atmic enquiry. Please note the caveat given by CS viz., "canonical texts have it that the Brahmin must have no love for money, that he must not accumulate wealth"; how many of the people who claim to be the opposite of the anti-brahmins will be able to honestly swear that they are not at all impelled by love for money or desire to accumulate wealth?

To me therefore, your statement that "the non-orthodox brahmins the most responsible", etc., appears like a childish attempt to allot marks to yourself and then blame the people who score lower in your judgement, for a greater share of the responsibility for the downfall of brahmins. CS himself does not seem to follow such a line of thinking and blames all brahmins, as you also state.

So, you are out-paramacharyaing your Paramacharya himself, in my opinion

This may help you get some mental satisfaction but no proportionate clemency from the Paramacharya himself, imo. So, don't you think it is better and more honest to shed this self-delusion and face facts squarely and admit that as per CS' norms you and I (and subbudu) are all equally to blame and perhaps we admit our inability to live the sastraic brahmin's life but you are being hypocritical?

 

[sangom]

Originally posted by Kunjuppu

till a few years ago, marriage between hindu and christian nadars was accepted as norm, with the hindu converting. not any more. today, i hear the communities have calcified, and intermarriage is frowned on by hindu nadars with their xtian co-caste.

K,

Nadars on this side of the Kerala-TN border still go by the Nadar status only and we can find them going to the temple and the church! because one spouse is hindu, the other Xian.

 

[sravna]

In my view for brahmins to change in accordance with the modern life is like falling into fire from the frying pan. The reason at least some of them are frying now is they are not clearly able to decide that traditional life style is the right one to choose. For their own future at least if not for the future of the world they should continue to hold on to their USP or be prepared to be lost in oblivion.

In my opinion, the spiritual mind is something that is almost never seen in the western world and in many other parts too but something uniquely born out of Indian culture. It contrasts markedly with the modern materialism and is probabaly is more valuable now than at any other point of time in history because the perils of modern day mentality is something which are already experiencing. The quality of mental life has definitely declined and continues to decline.

Some people here are doing great disservice when they keep on harping on the supremacist attitudes of the ancestors of the brahmins. As someone in another thread rightfully laments that when there is so much positive that one can talk on the contributions of the brahmins why keep picking up on the actions of the blacksheep which anyway are bound to be there in any community.

The society should not in its own interests expect brahmins to conform to it but let the uniqueness in them intact and let them really contribute. Real contributions doesn't come from designing hi-fi things like making machines that think but in making our own thinking progress in the right direction.

 

[sangom]

As far as this forum is concerned, it is the so called liberals who are adamant not only in their views but even in their style of writing. The taunts, the innuendos, the shenanigans, the hate-mongering are endless. The uncompromising stand is the stand of the liberals, which makes their labeling incorrect.

Shri KB,

The orthodox group which includes you also according to my observation, very often resort to name-calling and innuendos which immediately manifests as hatemongering; for example it is the orthodox group which very often uses adjectives like self-loathing brahmin, brahmin haters, DK apparatchiks etc. I don't find such "labeling" done by the opposite side but they use terms like orthodox just so that the group can be identified and addressed.

The problem, according to me is this. The orthodox group is trying to sell their view which has practically no relevance, no use and no rational justification to appeal to the minds of the younger generation of brahmins. I feel these youngsters would rather appreciate people like myself who frankly admit that we do no longer follow any sastra, we are interested, and rightly so, in accumulating wealth and enjoying creature comforts in our life and ensure that our children go a step higher in their life in terms of wealth, comforts and scientific knowledge. That people like me say that there is a Super power above Man possibly but religions are misleading guides to depend upon for that treasure hunt of Reality, is a frank admission of inability which may appeal more to the younger minds, than trying to beguile them with all that is told in the religion.

This is a bogus charge. If anything, the members that Sangom associate with are the ones who treat this forum as if it is their personal fiefdom. They thought they can go on unchallenged but they are wrong.

Neither I nor my "associates" in terms of pov, have any idea that this web forum is our fiefdom. In fact we would be very unhappy to lose any one from your side because then we lose that much opportunity to put forward our views which are viewed by the opposite group primarily as "sacrilege". Because of such a basic attitude, there arises immediately, emotional opposition rather than rational counter arguments, name-calling (if you don't digest what some one writes and do not know how to counter it through rationally convincing arguments, then rubbish the writer by calling him names; even the Acharyas of old were not free from this mental make-up and even though the "poorva paksha" was routinely written by these Acharyas themselves, when confronted with tough arguments they resorted to labeling those "poorva paksha" people as "Pandithammanyah" or one who struts as a scholar. So our orthodox friends are simply following their venerable Acharyas in this regard but fail to add convincing arguments based on rational premises.)

If you think, after all that is happening here in various threads, that "we are going unchallenged", I do not think anyone who reads these pages will be convinced. The fact is that we welcome being challenged, but not by labeling, name calling, innuendos and hatemongering.

When Shri Saidevo, one of the orthodox members here was asked to leave the forum by the (then) Supermoderator, the self-loathing antibrahmins were in the forefront of supporting Saidevo's continuance in the Forum. I am not able to recall the thread now but it happened some months ago. You may kindly search and see for yourself.

To sum up, my (and I take it that all the associates too) aim is to put forward my views in the Forum and leave it to the readers to judge whether there is any relevance and whether my views have a justification in the current scenario of brahmin life.

 

[sangom]

It just means that the people whom you accuse as being orthodox are not being orthodox at all. In fact, they are being liberal. That they are allowing their progeny to choose what is best for them.



Picking and choosing?! Didn't you pick and choose only the two points of the three I mentioned in my post (the third being, "If an "orthodox" does not, it is deemed dogmatic.")

The "liberals" accuse the orthodox as follows -

Strictly following religion - dogmatic.
Not strictly following it - hypocritical.

So I think the "liberals" are not being honest in their criticisms.

Shri Kalabhairavan,

I have already tried to explain the hypocrisy part here. Still I thought I will try to clarify once more.

The objection is not at all to "orthodox people allowing their progeny to choose what is best for them", but even while these members are aware that their views are not going to hold attraction even for their progeny, they voice opinions here as if their views are sacrosanct and failure to follow the brahmin way of life which they follow now, will destroy the very existence of the brahmin community itself. This, to me, is hypocrisy.

"Strictly following religion" by itself is not bad and there are many who do so, but only a few people in this forum put up the pose that their way of life determines what is brahminism and what is not; that is what comes out as "dogmatism" (intolerance and prejudice).

Once again, not strictly following religion is not by itself hypocritical. But not following religion strictly
and, at the same time, insisting that if others do not toe their line and advocate a differing pov, are all brahmin-haters, anti-brahmins, etc., is considered hypocritical.

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Kalabhairavan,

I have already tried to explain the hypocrisy part here. Still I thought I will try to clarify once more.

The objection is not at all to "orthodox people allowing their progeny to choose what is best for them", but even while these members are aware that their views are not going to hold attraction even for their progeny, they voice opinions here as if their views are sacrosanct and failure to follow the brahmin way of life which they follow now, will destroy the very existence of the brahmin community itself. This, to me, is hypocrisy.

"Strictly following religion" by itself is not bad and there are many who do so, but only a few people in this forum put up the pose that their way of life determines what is brahminism and what is not; that is what comes out as "dogmatism" (intolerance and prejudice).

Once again, not strictly following religion is not by itself hypocritical. But not following religion strictly
and, at the same time, insisting that if others do not toe their line and advocate a differing pov, are all brahmin-haters, anti-brahmins, etc., is considered hypocritical.

I was expecting some one would come and say- "Hey Paramacharya is right, we are indeed in the wrong" and defend paramacharya's views.
Rather the attempt here, from people like KB, seems to be a total whitewash, ignore paramacharya's comments and condemn the sceptics for straying away from Dharma. It is expected I would think, otherwise what is the need for this forum. The Orthodox TB would have packed his luggage and left for his village, changed into a panchakacham and started the Bhavati Bikshandehi chant. Living on alms is the path recommended by paramacharya in that article, I would presume.

 

[sangom]

I was expecting some one would come and say- "Hey Paramacharya is right, we are indeed in the wrong" and defend paramacharya's views.
Rather the attempt here, from people like KB, seems to be a total whitewash, ignore paramacharya's comments and condemn the sceptics for straying away from Dharma. It is expected I would think, otherwise what is the need for this forum. The Orthodox TB would have packed his luggage and left for his village, changed into a panchakacham and started the Bhavati Bikshandehi chant. Living on alms is the path recommended by paramacharya in that article, I would presume.

Dear Shri Subbudu,

The traditional Brahmin, nay the Hindu, psyche is expert in the art of "deify and disregard". In the case cited by you, the typical reaction from the orthodox brahmin people will be to build a temple for the Paramacharya, instal his idol in panchaloha therein, perform elaborate daily rituals, annual festivals etc., and side-by-side, marginalize his advice completely.

 

[Nara]

.... The reason at least some of them are frying now is they are not clearly able to decide that traditional life style is the right one to choose.

sravna, "not able to decide", hell no. Most of them have decided, very definitively, they don't want the orthodox (spiritual?) ways, they want the modern secular education and the material comforts it makes possible. Go to any Brahminical matam and ask around. Even those who lead a strictly orthodox life, because that is all they know, are motivated by just one thing, money.

In my opinion, the spiritual mind is something that is almost never seen in the western world and in many other parts too but something uniquely born out of Indian culture.

I have no idea what you mean by "spiritual mind". But, whatever it may be, your statement is too broad to be true. Inquiry into human life, its significance, etc., is not unique to India even during ancient times. In these modern times, truly exciting research on what one might call spirituality -- life and its purpose -- is actually happening in the west, India is stuck in the past, 3000 years in the past.

Some people here are doing great disservice when they keep on harping on the supremacist attitudes of the ancestors of the brahmins. As someone in another thread rightfully laments that when there is so much positive that one can talk on the contributions of the brahmins

....Real contributions doesn't come from designing hi-fi things like making machines that think but in making our own thinking progress in the right direction.

sravna, in the other thread you are talking about, all the contributions cited are all in secular fields, not a single one is what you may call spiritual, not a single one. Since you reject materialism so vehemently in favor of what you call spiritualism, why must those contributions seem positive to you?

Also, it is not just that all these contributions cited are about material things, further, none of these can be traced to the Brahminness of those Brahmins. On the contrary, they had to ditch their Brahminism and its teachings to make those contributions.

One member cited Barathiyar rejecting one of the central tenets of Brahminical spiritualism -- performing Upanayanam to a Dalit -- as a positive contribution. Yes, indeed it was a positive contribution, but it is positive not because it was done by a Brahmin, but because it went against Brahminism.

Alas, these ironies are too subtle for the contributors of that thread, one from which my ilk are forbidden.

Cheers!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

but I am yet to come across an orthodox Brahmin who sent his kids to anything other than modern education unless they didn't have any other choice.

You are tying up yourself with knots here.

Why must you insist on labels such as orthodox and liberal at all, if you cannot fine one "orthodox" brahmin who is not "liberal"?!!

I like Suraju's description here. He calls them pragmatist.

Once again, even though I criticize the orthodox for these anomalies, I only have love for them as they are trying to lead their lives as best they can. It is the enablers who want them to continue in their ways that I fault and despise.

Who are these enablers? Are they orthodox or liberal? You see, now you have to come up with pseudo-orthodox, pseudo-liberal etc

 

[கால பைரவன்]

I get the impression that Shri KB, like many other members here, follows some tail-end rites, rituals and practices from out of the detailed list prescribed by the Sastras, and they then arrogate to themselves the position of being 100% brahmins. They then think that the brahmins (? according to their view) who suggest liberal outlook and changes with the times are enemies of brahmins and since, in their imagination, they represent the true brahmins, their enemies too. This, I feel, is the root cause of all the animosity, intolerance to differing pov, bigotry, etc., exhibited by them. Such members (people) probably expect that brahmins must follow the rules considered good by them; in this respect they will ideally fit the position occupied by the ancient authors of the various Dharma Sastras, imo

Lies and Utter lies. I have given specific reasons why I used the term anti-brahmin. It had nothing to do with rituals or practices as Sangom tries to portray here. A person comes here and writes that brahmins are supremacists and that he would like to see that the community ceases to exist. I objected to such wholesale condemnation and called him anti-brahmin. That is all!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

To me therefore, your statement that "the non-orthodox brahmins the most responsible", etc., appears like a childish attempt to allot marks to yourself and then blame the people who score lower in your judgement, for a greater share of the responsibility for the downfall of brahmins. CS himself does not seem to follow such a line of thinking and blames all brahmins, as you also state.

So, you are out-paramacharyaing your Paramacharya himself, in my opinion

This may help you get some mental satisfaction but no proportionate clemency from the Paramacharya himself, imo. So, don't you think it is better and more honest to shed this self-delusion and face facts squarely and admit that as per CS' norms you and I (and subbudu) are all equally to blame and perhaps we admit our inability to live the sastraic brahmin's life but you are being hypocritical?

Picking and Choosing?! This is what I said in the last two lines:

I do not think Subbudu agrees with this statement. If he does, then he must hold himself and the non-orthodox brahmins the most responsible.

It is Subbudu who brought the Paramacharya's article into our attention. And it is he who blamed only the "orthodox". I gave his own medicine to him. If you follow my discussions with Nara, I am pointing out the fallacy of broadbrushing people as orthodox and liberal, while accusing the same orthodox people of being liberal.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Also, it is not just that all these contributions cited are about material things, further, none of these can be traced to the Brahminness of those Brahmins. On the contrary, they had to ditch their Brahminism and its teachings to make those contributions.

Nara comes up with a new term "Brahminness". Add this to brahminism, brahminist etc..

This is what Nara wrote in "who is a brahmin?" thread:

All this "who is a Brahmin?" is the height of Brahmnical narcissism. For all intents and purposes, a Brahmin is no more than a Mudaliyar or Chettiyar or Parayan, they all are caste and we get born into one of those castes. Brahmin is absolutely by birth, no more.

This is the inconsistency I talked about.

If brahmin is caste like any other and is absolute by birth, there is no point in saying "brahminness" etc.

If attaching a positive character to this brahminness is deemed narcissm, then I see no issue in saying that attaching a negative character to brahminness is hate-mongering.

 

[Nara]

You are tying up yourself with knots here.

KB strikes again, picking and choosing a bit here, a bit there, selectively quoting, ignoring the central point of the argument, always nibbling at the periphery.

KB, tell me why you left this out from my post:

"So, define orthodoxy anyway you like, the charge is still valid."

​

Why must you insist on labels such as orthodox and liberal at all, if you cannot fine one "orthodox" brahmin who is not "liberal"?!!

These labels are simply to identify and contrast the groups of people with opposing views we are arguing about. These labels by themselves are value-neutral, unlike some of the "characterization" you and those who share your views predictably descend to without fail.

I like Suraju's description here. He calls them pragmatist.

Is this not a label also? So, you are not really opposed to labels, just that you oppose it when it suits you, a kind of pragmatist, are you?

Here are some more labels we can use to more accurately describe these pragmatists -- unprincipled, opportunist!!

All this goes to kicking up dust and sidetracking the discussion into silly stuff. The point is, those who mouth reverence for Sasthras and the haloed Brahminical ways, are at the same time ditching it in favor of materialism. This is the charge. Please quit dancing around trivialities and address the main issue.

Who are these enablers? Are they orthodox or liberal? You see, now you have to come up with pseudo-orthodox, pseudo-liberal etc

You see what you like to see KB, but first I submit to you, the honest thing to do is either offer a rational rebuttal of the points I have raised in the post, or concede. Are you up to this integrity challenge?

Cheers!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

The point is, those who mouth reverence for Sasthras and the haloed Brahminical ways, are at the same time ditching it in favor of materialism. This is the charge. Please quit dancing around trivialities and address the main issue.

Who are these people? I do not see any such people in this forum!

You gave a few examples here and there from your personal experience. These people are, perhaps, a microscopic minority. Even here, the charge does not hold if you state that their progeny are the ones not following it.

 

[Nara]

Nara comes up with a new term "Brahminness". Add this to brahminism, brahminist etc..

Is there no end to this silliness???

This comment is about touting "Brahmin" contributions, as though they being Brahmins -- i.e. the Brahminness you guys claim -- had anything to do with those contributions. That is all.

The quote from "Who is a brahmin" further reinforces my position that there is nothing inherently superlative in being Brahmin. The preoccupation with trying to define who a brahmin is -- this preoccupation is self evident from the number of time this comes up here in this very forum -- is unique to those born into the brahmin caste and that is a mark of their narcissism, not natural, but learned.

All this must be self-evident, except to those who are truly daft or pretending to be.

... then I see no issue in saying that attaching a negative character to brahminness is hate-mongering.

People like KB who want to perpetuate this learned superstitious belief in Brahminical supremacy are the worst enemies of those born into the Brahmin caste -- I have made this easy for people to understand properly, but who knows, people who want to deliberately equate மொட்டத்தலை and மொழங்கால், not out of daftness, nothing can escape misappropriation.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Nara can use all such words - silly, daft, enemies etc etc

The point is if one defines a brahmin in one way, he should stick to it.

If brahmins are only a caste like any other, then one must acknowledge the contributions of members arising out of the caste if one also wants to criticize the group for the folly of members arising out of that caste.

one can't have it both ways.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

is unique to those born into the brahmin caste and that is a mark of their narcissism, not natural, but learned.

It is not unique as is being claimed here.

In any case, once it is said it is not natural (i.e. in-born) but learned, what is the point in associating such a character with a caste at all? Not all people from the caste learn it! I would say a majority of them do not learn it!