How to retain our left out community???

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

The bottomline is that, let us try to cultivate and bring out the good in us, without being tainted by the ideology of a "varna".

Yes...human values.

 

[prasad1]

Every one will claim he is a guna brahmana if there is advantage in doing that. Suppose for all guna brahmnas there is going to be a 20 % reservation in all jobs every one(including Naidus and pillais and Mudaliyars) will all become guna brahmana over night. And Government will have a serious problem in its hand in determin ing whether some one is a guna brahmana because there are no metrics to do that. It will be purely on the basis of self declaration "solemnly".

That is the truth. So most of the talk about Brahmins, Brahmin Values, Brahmin ways, Brahmin numbers, Brahmin Culture is determined BY BIRTH alone, at least in this forum. The Guna Brahmin and BG's categories are purely diversions, and window decorations. Let us be honest even if the truth be painful.
TKSJi, Renekaji and others are the exceptions.

 

[prasad1]

Yes...human values.

That is it.

 

[tks]

Sir,

I sincerely thank you and all other members so much for all your/their valued contributions in this Forum and in this thread in particular.

Like few others, your postings are very informative and certainly helps one to enrich his knowledge on the subject.

Having debate on every point is nice, so that we get treasure of information and by the way I alo find that most of the postings are within the lakshman rekha without resorting to personal attack.

IMO, this thread is doing fine because all participants are really bit serious except for a few postings which are prone to derail the thread which is inevitable.

Now, may I take the privilege and liberty to ask you and others to contribute your/their considered opinion on Chapter 14.27 of Bhagavat Gita (though it may not be relevant to the OP).

This act of mine is aimed at only just to have a clear understanding, I mean in the academic interest certainly not to defend or support any one’s stand, opinion, etc.

Shall I say in search of truth?

Thanks

P.S: I yearn for your and others active participation. Success of the thread is not my concern and my only concern is bringing about the best and valuable information from most of the elite and erudite members. The thread's success lies in bring more debatable information which prove to be food for thought especiallly for a few who starve for knowledge.

Sri VB,

You might consider opening a new thread regarding the question you have.

Based on schools of thought driven by theological beliefs there are number of interpretations and conclusions.

For me it has to all make sense without asking one to believe in some ideas while making minimal assumptions (all being reasonable and does not contradict with anything that is established). This is also in line with the philosophy of Occum's razor

Therefore my understanding is not in line with most theology based interpretations. I do not like to state much more because of two reasons.

1. B. Gita teaches truth where it is not possible to selectively discuss a verse and do full justice. Most topic areas in the 18 chapters are related very closely and in trying to understand the teaching holistically one is able to resolve many apparently contradictory statements. Besides learning, it is about living the teaching where true knowledge will make one become silent (obviously the fact that I am responding means I am not there (yet) ). Discussion via this forum about topic areas involving words which have no parallel in our life (Brahman etc ) is impossible. We can occasionally cite specific verses to make a point in order to support an understanding. That is the best that is possible here.

2. In this forum and particularly in this General Section, my experience is that it is not possible to have intellectually stimulating discussions.

Regardless, if you end up opening a new thread, you may want to explain more why you find this verse to be discussed.

Regards

 

[renuka]

That is the truth. So most of the talk about Brahmins, Brahmin Values, Brahmin ways, Brahmin numbers, Brahmin Culture is determined BY BIRTH alone, at least in this forum. The Guna Brahmin and BG's categories are purely diversions, and window decorations. Let us be honest even if the truth be painful.
TKSJi, Renekaji and others are the exceptions.

Truth is never painful...Truth is only the Truth....but the problem is the Ekam Sat Viprah Bahuda Vadanti Syndrome can cause confusion.

In fact the question I put forth in an earlier post that "Is anyone here willing to admit they are only Varna Brahmin and NOT Guna Brahmin" has still no one admitting it cos deep down inside its a fact that Varna is by birth and not by Guna.

Everyone knows this...and there is nothing wrong in believing Varna is by birth ONLY cos that makes the most sense since there is also the Gotra system.

If Varna was not by birth there would not have been a Gotra system.

If one feels that the Bhagavad Geeta preaches about Varna being by Guna ..we have to take into the consideration the population at that particular era.

It was in another Yuga! What were the number of inhabitants in the area and what were the actual genetic make up?

We have no idea..so its really hard to determine what the BG verses really meant.

Also in the Mahabharat, Yudhisthira did not practice what he preached about the definition of Brahmana yet he went around calling Karna a suta putra instead of a Kshatriya.

Everything seems contradicting that one might start to wonder even if the BG itself had some verses added on much later when other schools of thoughts started cropping up.

For example Jainism and Buddhism did not harp on the Varna system as much. so who knows to prevent people from embracing these 2 schools of thoughts someone added a stanza that Varna is by Guna just to be politically correct to gain more votes!

Religion at times is like politics..each school of thought wants the most votes.

May be this is the only Truth that we need to know.

Also there is nothing wrong in Varna being by birth cos we can just look at it from a genetic point of view that different tribes inhabited ancient India and each displayed differing characteristics.

There is no superiority or inferiority in differing characteristics..its just part and parcel of nature.

Just like when we see a person who is a different race from us eg a Chinese..we accept his genetic make up as Chinese and we do not try to define if being Chinese is by Guna or Varna...like wise a person is Brahmin due to Genetic make up which is purely determined by ONLY birth.

What is so difficult to accept this fact?

 

[zebra16]

In fact the question I put forth in an earlier post that "Is anyone here willing to admit they are only Varna Brahmin and NOT Guna Brahmin" has still no one admitting it cos deep down inside its a fact that Varna is by birth and not by Guna.

What is so difficult to accept this fact?

Read my answer in post #296. This is what I said:

According to me the original classification of a brAhmaNa was purely varNa based. But as the time progressed and profession became hereditary it came about more and more being associated with birth.

It is not any difficult to accept. The members who joined this forum (save a few exceptions) are birth based brahmins. The classification as brahmins for the last few hundreds of years has been purely birth based.

Further, it is not in the hands of the brahmins alone the choice of being classified a birth-based brahmin. The society calls them such, the government recognizes them as such.

 

[tbs]

Read my answer in post #296. This is what I said:



It is not any difficult to accept. The members who joined this forum (save a few exceptions) are birth based brahmins. The classification as brahmins for the last few hundreds of years has been purely birth based.

Further, it is not in the hands of the brahmins alone the choice of being classified a birth-based brahmin. The society calls them such, the government recognizes them as such.

hi
govt put stamp on school certificates.....all GUNA based brahmins gone..not anymore...just birth based are more now..

 

[zebra16]

Just like when we see a person who is a different race from us eg a Chinese..we accept his genetic make up as Chinese and we do not try to define if being Chinese is by Guna or Varna...like wise a person is Brahmin due to Genetic make up which is purely determined by ONLY birth.What is so difficult to accept this fact?

Because we see them superficially from outside. Do you have any idea of what Uyghur Chinese, or Manchu Chinese or Yao Chinese think of Han Chinese and what makes these ethnic tribes different from Hans Chinese?

 

[Vaagmi]

This is similar to saying that a group "x" has been enslaving and riding over group "y" for the last couple of thousands of years and as a result of the impact of that "environment" and the resultant influence on the genes, currently, group "x" is born with a superior natural administrative trait, and group "y" is born with an inferior slave-mentality trait.

What I said is science called Anthropology. There is no equivalency between your example and my contention.

OK. Let us stay at your level and converse about this.

Don't you see an Einstein or Openheimer or name any top scientist for the 18/19th century- have all to be either Jews or Anglo Saxons/Nordics not even a slav, mongoloid or negroid. Why a Billgate or a Zukerbeck has to be from the Nordic and Anglo Saxon stock?

You have perhaps inadvertantly made me look at these facts from this angle. That adds to the strength of my argument. Thank you.

I know what will be your reply. I have heard this said by many--that I am another racist pig. I don't care. If you have anything else to say, please do present it here.

And going up one level, the group X picking up leadership and valour as qualities depend on the environment in which they live as a part of the society building up a civilization. That can be called the "cause". The enslavement and riding over may be called the "effect". We are talking about the cause here. The effects can be many and varied in nature. For instance the sAtvik nature of the Brahmins has been the cause of good effects in the society. LOL.

 

[auh]

What I said is science called Anthropology. There is no equivalency between your example and my contention.

OK. Let us stay at your level and converse about this.

Don't you see an Einstein or Openheimer or name any top scientist for the 18/19th century- have all to be either Jews or Anglo Saxons/Nordics not even a slav, mongoloid or negroid. Why a Billgate or a Zukerbeck has to be from the Nordic and Anglo Saxon stock?

You have perhaps inadvertantly made me look at these facts from this angle. That adds to the strength of my argument. Thank you.

I know what will be your reply. I have heard this said by many--that I am another racist pig. I don't care. If you have anything else to say, please do present it here.

And going up one level, the group X picking up leadership and valour as qualities depend on the environment in which they live as a part of the society building up a civilization. That can be called the "cause". The enslavement and riding over may be called the "effect". We are talking about the cause here. The effects can be many and varied in nature. For instance the sAtvik nature of the Brahmins has been the cause of good effects in the society. LOL.

This is not a settled subject that one could conclude easily. There is no concrete proof or evidence, so far, that genetic makeup influence human nature or behaviour. While it is common knowledge that human nature is most definitely influenced by the variables around an individual.

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/human-nature/

The idea of human nature as a set of shared human capacities became intellectually dominant during the European Enlightenment, from around the 1750s, in a doctrine known as the “psychic unity of mankind.” Adam Smith, considered by many as the grandfather of free-market capitalism and economics, espoused a shared human nature. Smith writes in The Wealth of Nations

:

The difference of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education. (1776 [1982]:120)
​

Enlightenment thinkers believed in a human ascent from savagery to civilization, but they believed all human beings were capable of the ascent. Many of them, like Montaigne, also recognized the potential for savagery within civilization.

On the other side of the debate are those who argue for plural human natures–that human differences by group are so profound that we cannot see human beings as having one shared nature or capacities. These people say humans are shaped by their environment, but only to a minor extent. Those who emphasize differences in human natures have not cared so much whether that difference comes from biology or culture. They focus on intractable human difference. They have made this point most obviously with regard to racial difference, but this idea of intractable difference has also appeared in discussions about rich and poor, or citizens and immigrants, and many continue to use terms of intractable difference when discussing men and women (see one of the most popular posts on this blog,

And particularly this:

John Stuart Mill, upholding classical political economy and the Enlightenment, responded in 1850 with a stinging defense of a common human nature, calling it a “vulgar error” to think human differences must be differences in nature:

As well might it be said, that of two trees, sprung from the same stock, one cannot be taller than another but from greater vigor in the original seedling. Is nothing to be attributed to soil, nothing to climate, nothing to difference of exposure–has no storm swept over the one and not the other, no lightning scathed it, no beast browsed on it, no insects preyed on it, no passing stranger stript off its leaves or its bark? If the trees grew near together, may not the one which, by whatever accident, grew up first, have retarded the other’s development by its shade? Human beings are subject to an infinitely greater variety of accidents and external influences than trees, and have infinitely more operation in impairing the growth of one another, since those who begin by being strongest, have almost always hitherto used their strength to keep the others weak.​

​

 

[auh]

The environment in which brahmins must have cultivated their "impact" of genes are due to the clever manipulation of the scriptures. The growth, if any, is by stepping on the head of the shudras.

Given an equal opportunity, I see many NBs perform more than brahmins. And again, I hold the view that the nature of a birth-brahmin is due to upbringing than any other.

 

[Vaagmi]

This is not a settled subject that one could conclude easily. There is no concrete proof or evidence, so far, that genetic makeup influence human nature or behaviour. While it is common knowledge that human nature is most definitely influenced by the variables around an individual.
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/human-nature/

This just a hypothesis where as what I rely on (Boyd's findings) is painstaking research and a principle that has been proved with observed facts. There is no equivalency and so I am unable to accept your point.

 

[Vaagmi]

The environment in which brahmins must have cultivated their "impact" of genes are due to the clever manipulation of the scriptures. The growth, if any, is by stepping on the head of the shudras.

Given an equal opportunity, I see many NBs perform more than brahmins. And again, I hold the view that the nature of a birth-brahmin is due to upbringing than any other.

I do not want to argue on this as it is several time araichcha maavu including by the street corner fire spitting DK charlatans. LOL.

 

[auh]

This just a hypothesis where as what I rely on is painstaking research and a principle that has been proved with observed facts. There is no equivalency and so I am unable to accept your point.

Please share the link of the research and its conclusion based on irrefutable proof, and its acceptance in the scientific and international community. I will go through it.

If you have already shared it, kindly point it and I will look it up.

 

[Vaagmi]

Please share the link of the research and its conclusion based on irrefutable proof, and its acceptance in the scientific and international community. I will go through it.

If you have already shared it, kindly point it and I will look it up.

Please google "Not by Genes alone - by Robert Boyd and Stevenson, UCLA".

 

[CHANDRU1849]

The environment in which brahmins must have cultivated their "impact" of genes are due to the clever manipulation of the scriptures. The growth, if any, is by stepping on the head of the shudras.

Given an equal opportunity, I see many NBs perform more than brahmins. And again, I hold the view that the nature of a birth-brahmin is due to upbringing than any other.

Yes. Does it not apply to Bs also? In the name of reservation, is equal opportunity given? Don't throw stones sitting inside a glass room. Is it due to Tasmac effect?

Please come to Mylai Mangollai where political meetings are being held regularly. For a change, you can conduct a meeting and vigorously support about equal opportunity and you will be rewarded suitably.

 

[auh]

Please google "Not by Genes alone - by Robert Boyd and Stevenson, UCLA".

Disclaimer: A free copy of the book is not available online, and hence I had to deal with whatever samples are available online. Chapter 1 is here http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/712842.html

1) This is a book arguing that culture has an impact on evolution and is not a scientific position held by the community.
2) This does not show any direct proof that evolution through culture has a definite impact at the genetic level.

I quote a portion below

Natural selection acting on culture is an ultimate cause of human behavior, just like natural selection acting on genes. Consider an example we will return to repeatedly. Much cultural variation exists at the group level. Different human groups have different norms and values, and the cultural transmission of these traits can cause such differences to persist for long periods of time. Now, the norms and values that predominate in a group plausibly affect the probability that the group is successful, whether it survives, and whether it expands. For the purposes of illustration, suppose that groups having norms that promote group solidarity are more likely to survive than groups lacking this sentiment. This creates a selective process that leads to the spread of solidarity. Of course, this process may be opposed by an evolved innate psychology that biases what we learn from others, making us more prone to imitate and invent selfish or nepotistic beliefs rather than ones favoring group solidarity, like patriotism. The long-run evolutionary outcome would then depend on the balance of the processes favoring and disfavoring patriotism. Again for the sake of illustration, let us suppose that net effect of these opposing processes causes patriotic beliefs to predominate. In this case, the population behaves patriotically because such behavior promotes group survival, in exactly the same way that the sickle-cell gene is common in malarial areas because it promotes individual survival. Human culture participates in ultimate causation.

This is just an analogy deducing the probability of survival of an individual based on cultural behaviour, with that of a gene adapting to an environmental factor.

It does not explain why in a given "local territory" having the same environmental stimuli, different cultures evolved and continued to exist. It would not have been mandated at the gene level simply because there was no external threat of survival and everyone could have survived better by moving over to the one culture. We dont see that happen.

We see that different species respond to human commands because they have been conditioned to do so, whilst ignoring thousands of years of inherited traits. Pavlov's experiments are an example to it.

The book, imo, argues that culture is essential for without it we may not have evolved. Fine, but what is the fine detail that proves that it has to have an impact at the gene level, and not merely by adopted behaviour. Gene level changes cannot be undone by humans adopting a different behaviour in their lifetime. Let us take an example - a gene that is responsible for the colour of eyes of a person, if dominant, would result in the colour manifesting in the eyes in all individuals (who have the gene). Similarly, we cannot identify a gene that is responsible for a person's liking for the supposedly sattvik "thayir sadam" (brahmins have been eating it for eons, I suppose) and that such a person endowed with the "ts" gene would not be able to hate it.

Another interesting point to note is that if we are to believe in this "Not by genes alone", we would have to believe in natural selection, and that would seem to refute the role of a "god" in shaping humans.

 

[renuka]

Given an equal opportunity, I see many NBs perform more than brahmins.

If anyone was in my college they would have known that the gold medalists students were not always a Brahmin..many other types of Indians too were gold medalist and other races from Middle East too used to top the college.

There were TB students in my class too..one used to be just very average in studies and another used to be a topper.

One of the most intelligent person in my class and not to mention real good looking too was a NB girl from TN.

One of the best Forensic Specialist in Asia hails from Thailand.

Even Chinese doctors from Singapore are known for their brilliance.

The late Dr APJ Abdul Kalam was not a Brahmin.

Recently Devika Sirohi a Jaat women from UP was one the researches to decode the Zika Virus.

So its hard to generalize which race has more brains.

These days almost everyone is good in everything becos equal opportunity exists.

Just to add..I noted this when I was in college... an easy way to get TB friends..just score high marks and automatically they become your friends and they try to find out how you study!LOL

 

[Vaagmi]

These are the reviews about the book and they do not dismiss the findings that quickly. I have the book and I have read it completely. Boyd's conclusions were not arbitrary on the basis of surmise. He worked with a sample of people who had Lactose Intolerance (an allergy to milk /dairy products) and has based his conclusion on his findings. He has also extensively from lther people who have worked on this issue like Richard Nisbeth, Dov Cohen, and who else but Darwin. If you are a member of UCLA Library you can access this book on line.

Richard Lewontin | The New York Review of Books
“There have been a number of more or less complex variants on this . . . metaphor for genetic evolution and it is generally agreed that the most nuanced and sophisticated version is contained in the work of Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson, and laid out in considerable detail in Not By Genes Alone.”


Robin Dunbar | Nature
“Drawing on new ideas about multilevel selection, evolutionary psychology and . . . ‘strong reciprocity’ (the bestowing of rewards and punishments even where there is no direct personal gain for this behavior), Richerson and Boyd build a case for a special role for cultural processes in human evolution. . . . It is a book full of good sense and the kinds of intellectual rigour and clarity that we have come to expect from [the authors].”



W. C. McGrew | Journal of Human Evolution
“Ambitious and wide-ranging. . . . The writing is lucid, even eloquent. . . . Richerson and Boyd have done a rare thing: Casting their net widely across a range of disciplines, in order to tackle the most complex phenomenon of our species, and they have achieved consilience. Read and ponder.”



Susan Blackmore | Bioscience
“Writing in a much more accessible form than they have before, Richerson and Boyd lay out their case for the role of culture in shaping the human mind and behavior. . . . . This book provides an excellent account of Richerson and Boyd's theory, and is a must-read for anyone interested in gene-culture coevolution.”



Don Brothwell | Antiquity
"[The] subject, the place of culture in human evolutionary dynamics, is relatively neglected, and is rarely as well debated as it is here. . . . Indeed, their text deserves to be considered by all of us in any field of archaeology."


Northeastern Naturalist
"This is an important work that is sure to generate lively discussion on a topic crucial to our understanding of ourselves."


Adam Gifford, Jr. | Journal of Bioeconomics
"Richerson and Boyd have produced an excellent explication and overview of the current state of the research on cultural evolution . . . and the relative roles of genes and culture in human evolution and behavior from the Pleistocene to the present--and they have done all this in a rigorous but non-technical, easily readable format. I think that both those who are just beginning to explore the evolutionary sources of human behavior and those who are currently engaged in work in this area will greatly benefit from reading this book."

 

[prasad1]

Everyone knows this...and there is nothing wrong in believing Varna is by birth ONLY cos that makes the most sense since there is also the Gotra system.

If Varna was not by birth there would not have been a Gotra system.

Also in the Mahabharat, Yudhisthira did not practice what he preached about the definition of Brahmana yet he went around calling Karna a suta putra instead of a Kshatriya.

Everything seems contradicting that one might start to wonder even if the BG itself had some verses added on much later when other schools of thoughts started cropping up.

Going by the story, none of the Pandavas and Karna were were Kshatriyas. The gods did not have caste system so Karna (if he is son of SUN) can not have a caste, Pandu at best was the adopted father, so there is no lineage from a kshatriya. If Kunti was not the queen she would have been stoned to death and these children will be treated as mongrel.

Then again it is a story.

 

[zebra16]

Given an equal opportunity, I see many NBs perform more than brahmins.

Coming from a person who expects others to come up with irrefutable proof or evidence for any averment they make, this is a plain bland statement. There is nothing to show why this should be true or untrue.

 

[zebra16]

Going by the story, none of the Pandavas and Karna were were Kshatriyas. The gods did not have caste system so Karna (if he is son of SUN) can not have a caste, Pandu at best was the adopted father, so there is no lineage from a kshatriya.

This should have been the first point that should have been taken up for consideration. But as long as the said scripture suited the members to demonstrate their point of view, people chose to ignore its validity.

If Kunti was not the queen she would have been stoned to death

From where do you get this idea? Are there any such instances reported in scriptures?

 

[auh]

Coming from a person who expects others to come up with irrefutable proof or evidence for any averment they make, this is a plain bland statement. There is nothing to show why this should be true or untrue.

you are clever.

It is just an observation that I have come across, and hence does not warrant any thing more. Maybe you can state your position on it backed up by solid data and we can perhaps debate on it.

 

[auh]

This should have been the first point that should have been taken up for consideration. But as long as the said scripture suited the members to demonstrate their point of view, people chose to ignore its validity

There are so many things that are beyond belief in the puranas. Even the lineage of pandu and dhridrashtra is debatable. It is those that believe in the scriptures that have an onus to prove anything.

 

[Vaagmi]

From where do you get this idea? Are there any such instances reported in scriptures?

Where else. Just from beyond the khyber pass.