Let a Dalit become a Sankaracharya !! தலித்தை சங்கராச்சாரியாராக ஆக்குங

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

The ban on discussing godmen was removed long back. Please refer to posts by Sangom sir. This is an open society. There cannot be a ban on discussions regarding godmen, mutts, churches, mosques, anyone or anything that pertains to the public interest at large. Provocative is in the mind that perceives it. Thankyou.

Please see this thread started by Praveen.

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6379-sathya-sai-baba-passes-away.html

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

This thread reminds me about how Indians believe in Symbolism. A Dalit chief minister declared that only a Dalit should be the Prime Minister of India.

What would that achieve? We had a Dalit president. Did it make any difference in the life of the poor downtrodden Dalit. Even during his presidency atrocities against Dalits continued unabated. One of the Chief ministers even refused to receive him at the airport.

We had a Dalit Chief Justice. Did it make a difference?

Instead of addressing the real problems faced by the Dalits we offer these symbolic gestures. Even reservations have become symbolic now as far as the OBCs are concerned.. Studies have proved that even without the reservations the percentage of backward class students in professional colleges would be thr same. The backward class students get the majority of even the unreserved seats. They are better than the present day so called forward class students.

If a Dalit becomes the Sankaracharya would it stop the two tumbler system? Or demolish the wall constructed across a village by other castes, or allow all of them entry into all the temples. None of these will happen.

It is time that the Indian public wake up and recognize these symbolic/empty gestures which do not help any one except bloat the ego of some individuals/groups.

 

[C RAVI]

This thread reminds me about how Indians believe in Symbolism. A Dalit chief minister declared that only a Dalit should be the Prime Minister of India.

What would that achieve? We had a Dalit president. Did it make any difference in the life of the poor downtrodden Dalit. Even during his presidency atrocities against Dalits continued unabated. One of the Chief ministers even refused to receive him at the airport.

We had a Dalit Chief Justice. Did it make a difference?

Instead of addressing the real problems faced by the Dalits we offer these symbolic gestures. Even reservations have become symbolic now as far as the OBCs are concerned.. Studies have proved that even without the reservations the percentage of backward class students in professional colleges would be thr same. The backward class students get the majority of even the unreserved seats. They are better than the present day so called forward class students.

If a Dalit becomes the Sankaracharya would it stop the two tumbler system? Or demolish the wall constructed across a village by other castes, or allow all of them entry into all the temples. None of these will happen.

It is time that the Indian public wake up and recognize these symbolic/empty gestures which do not help any one except bloat the ego of some individuals/groups.

Thats it...

 

[happyhindu]

Story books carry information about history. There is a strong statistical signal from them that shows Brahmins were poor people. Unless you show us some other strong proof they were rich class, this is what I believe. Brahminism teaches them to dedicate themselves to the service of God, not seek wealth and live a simple life. Kindly show me any credible tenet that tells brahmins to go and accumulate wealth.
Those days everyone except the king was poor. There was little difference between a farmer and a brahmin by way of wealth.

Sir for someone from the academic side this is disappointing. Theory wise everyone knows how brahmins are supposed to live. But there is hardly any evidence pointing to their poverty. Which is why i also mentioned parpanars professing occupations. No begging there too.

Wonder how can anyone expect story books to be passed as history. The "poor brahmin" in tales (jataka tales?) are most probably buddhist-brahmins. Surely you are speaking of hindu purohits, not buddhist sanyasis, are you?

There is strong historical proof that brahmins were a rich class. Brahmins under Vijayanagar rule as traders, army commanders, brahmins under Kadamba dynasty, brahmins as traders under cholas (ayyavole guild), like this you can find several historical evidences. Even IVC yielded the image of what is called the priest-king. Priestly clans as warriors were not uncommon. There was a long standing fight between kshatriyas and brahmins (both were militant units) (sangom sir also had posted on it).

Clearly, you believe Brahmins were rich, Brahmins did some harm to others by words, Brahmins are united (because NBs say so) and Casteism is wrong because it leads to discrimination.

Did i say brahmins did some harm? No i did not. I only said brahmins were rich.

We are not in the same wavelength. I do not think casteism leads to any discrimination. Whether one likes it or not, the world is driven by economic rules. There is only rich class and poor class discrimination.

Ask any man who has to battle both caste and class to make it in life. If you have caste (as a brahmin) but no money, you still have a social standing. Casteism does lead to discrimination. Those who neither have caste nor money are the worst hit in life.

And so what if one group claims "We are superior!"? Let the other group also claim "We are superior!". Such claims have no meaning in real world. The Jews claims they are "God's Chosen people". Nobody else in the world cares about such claims. But you seem to bother so much about a phantom superiority and that it somehow affected so many people.

How can those who are yet to get out of the clutches of untouchability even claim "we are superior". Yes casteism did affect many people. If you keep claiming you are a brahmin merely for your birth, then ofcourse you are automatically designating a dalit as a dalit merely for his birth. I thot you supported a flexible caste system, but i suppose i fooled myself into thinking so.

If some 2000 year scripture wrote "brahmins are superior", then you write another scripture saying "Dalits are Superior!" and be done with it. But cherrypicking such esoteric scripts and making politics out of it is ridiculous. You are making a mountain out of a mole.

What sort of reasoning is this? Why should dalits write rubbish scriptures, which will only lead to their downfall in future anyways? What happened to the flexible caste system you were speaking of. Ah well.....

Anyways sir, you are right. We are not in the same wavelength. You are way above me. You probably want dalits to eat cakes when they have no bread. I have understood your views. It wud be pointless to keep talking about this. Hopefully we can agree to disagree and move on.

 

[happyhindu]

Please see this thread started by Praveen.

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6379-sathya-sai-baba-passes-away.html

I think that applies to that time period. But now? I dunno. Let Praveen clarify.

Btw sir, for me, your posts were provocative, loaded with obfuscations. But i was not, am not and will not be complaining. I suppose you want to shut this discussion out, maybe out of fear. Anyways let Praveen decide. To me, people like you only mislead the coming generations....Instead of giving both sides of the events, you only keep portraying brahmins as innocent victims of political conspiracy. You cannot clap with one hand. Only one side cannot be the mistake-makers. Let the younger generation know both sides of a story. Its from them to read and form their views.

 

[happyhindu]

This thread reminds me about how Indians believe in Symbolism. A Dalit chief minister declared that only a Dalit should be the Prime Minister of India.

What would that achieve? We had a Dalit president. Did it make any difference in the life of the poor downtrodden Dalit. Even during his presidency atrocities against Dalits continued unabated. One of the Chief ministers even refused to receive him at the airport.

We had a Dalit Chief Justice. Did it make a difference?

Instead of addressing the real problems faced by the Dalits we offer these symbolic gestures. Even reservations have become symbolic now as far as the OBCs are concerned.. Studies have proved that even without the reservations the percentage of backward class students in professional colleges would be thr same. The backward class students get the majority of even the unreserved seats. They are better than the present day so called forward class students.

If a Dalit becomes the Sankaracharya would it stop the two tumbler system? Or demolish the wall constructed across a village by other castes, or allow all of them entry into all the temples. None of these will happen.

It is time that the Indian public wake up and recognize these symbolic/empty gestures which do not help any one except bloat the ego of some individuals/groups.

Sir, Who are we to decide what will happen or not happen if a 'dalit' becomes a shankaracharya...i don't think anyone here has the ability to look into a crystal ball and predict the future. And again, it wud be shameful on our own part if we were to use the word 'dalit' for someone who takes sanyasam. Just shows where our attitude lies. Dunno what to say....but you know sir, if this is how closed up people are now, i can only imagine what miserable words low-castes had to hear from brahmins just 50 years back.

 

[subbudu1]

If a Dalit becomes the Sankaracharya would it stop the two tumbler system? Or demolish the wall constructed across a village by other castes, or allow all of them entry into all the temples. None of these will happen.

I I have to disagree with this post. It will make a difference. But the question is hypothetical because a dalit cannot become a Shankaracharya with the prevailing attitudes. If brahmins accept him, still there will be millions and millions of NBs who will not accept him. An OBC as a Shankaracharya can be foreseen but a Dalit is highly unlikely to be looked upon favorably now or in the coming decade.

Dalits occupying high posts is certainly good for their community.However the examples have to be right. There were too many controversies surrounding KR Narayanan that I dont know what to believe and what not to believe. But the former Chief Justice, a dalit and Mayawati are certainly not good examples. Just in the same way as ND Tiwari, J.J are not examples for brahmins to follow.

We see rampant corruption in Mayawati's regimes. Those who are politically important have been benefitted by her rule. But not all dalits. So what can change the dalit's life is the kind of leader they produce who reaches the top place with or without reservation. A good leader will make a difference even if he comes via reservation.

Reservation need not necessarily send ineligible or improper canditates for posts especially when there are a sufficient number of canditates to qualify. However it might affect the future of those who are needed by the country.

The country needs to create opportunities for all the people who are willing to work for it with sincerity and devotion. No social equation should be used to cutoff the opportunity of some.

 

[happyhindu]

I I have to disagree with this post. It will make a difference. But the question is hypothetical because a dalit cannot become a Shankaracharya with the prevailing attitudes. If brahmins accept him, still there will be millions and millions of NBs who will not accept him. An OBC as a Shankaracharya can be foreseen but a Dalit is highly unlikely to be looked upon favorably now or in the coming decade.

Subbudu sir, reg the line in bold - how do you know NBs will not accept? The present younger generation employs anyone trained in priesthood, including whites from iskcon and trained priests from the amma-bhagavan organisation (am saying this to specify the range). They have no hang-ups unlike the old folks of my mom's generation. Even my dad had a havan done from a white priest in iskcon.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

My views are well known. This article which I wrote in 2008 sums it up. There are many people who mistake Sattvikam for cowardice because they do not understand non-violence. They can only think of fear. As Bharthiar said Anchi, Anchi, chavar....

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/articles-guides/1743-countering-anti-brahminism-i.html

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/articles-guides/1744-countering-anti-brahminism-ii.html

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/articles-guides/1745-countering-anti-brahminism-iii.html

 

[ShivKC]

happyhindu ""patently fraudulent theories of the South Indians especially of Tamil Nadu.."

Let us first not incriminate anybody you or Nachi. I only said the words were provocative not the general opinion expressed.
I am not sure if your mother tongue is Tamil,

subbudu sir, i am not sure if you are aware of this.

. we all should encourage smt.happyhindu for her knowledge , and also for being the only very active female member who had contributed a lot here (pls look at her posting count.. thanks to google too.

i appreciate her boldness in standing up against all the odds, countered by groups,ganps and posters..

regarding your question of your underlined above, HH was transparent, frank and identified herself here openly as a Non-Tamil (though could trace some roots to tamil/telgu) and a Non-Brahmin, and she never had hidden her identity at any point of time, which we all should appreciate her..

may be, her words in English were highly donned with adjectives & adverbs, it appears to be pricking.. but still she is a cool cat..

i think, you should take it easy.

 

[subbudu1]

Subbudu sir, reg the line in bold - how do you know NBs will not accept? The present younger generation employs anyone trained in priesthood, including whites from iskcon and trained priests from the amma-bhagavan organisation (am saying this to specify the range). They have no hang-ups unlike the old folks of my mom's generation. Even my dad had a havan done from a white priest in iskcon.

Happy Hindu re-read my post I did not say all, but millions and millions of OBC will not accept him. Consider the population of India please. Your family and a few other families cannot be a rule. There are brahmins who marry whites and even accepted in home and allowed into Shraddham. One of my relatives is an example . Not all will!

I dont want to quote the castes but some famous people make the news. I dont see how any of them will ever accept a dalit!

 

[happyhindu]

My views are well known. This article which I wrote in 2008 sums it up. There are many people who mistake Sattvikam for cowardice because they do not understand non-violence. They can only think of fear. As Bharthiar said Anchi, Anchi, chavar....

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/articles-guides/1743-countering-anti-brahminism-i.html

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/articles-guides/1744-countering-anti-brahminism-ii.html

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/articles-guides/1745-countering-anti-brahminism-iii.html

I wanted to make posts, countering the info you presented (in the above posts), last year itself. At that time i had stopped myself from doing so out of respect for you. But now i have learnt that having respect does not mean one must not speak up or stand up for the truth. I shall write a point-wise reply to your posts next week. Thanks.

 

[happyhindu]

Happy Hindu re-read my post I did not say all, but millions and millions of OBC will not accept him. Consider the population of India please. Your family and a few other families cannot be a rule. There are brahmins who marry whites and even accepted in home and allowed into Shraddham. One of my relatives is an example . Not all will!

I dont want to quote the castes but some famous people make the news. I dont see how any of them will ever accept a dalit!

i should not have mentioned my family, am sorry.

However, looking at the wide acceptance received for priests trained by arya samaj, isckon, philosphers trained by maharshi university, art of living, chinmaya mission, etc, -- am unable to see how "millions and millions of OBCs" will not accept him... i feel most people do not like to be called OBC in the first place (which is just a political term for a shudra), just shows the diff between how Bs think and the aam aadmi thinks.

I agree there are brahminists in other 'castes', its only a matter of time for their awareness to grow...

 

[DrBarani]

Sir for someone from the academic side this is disappointing

.

Haha, good try, but I am not intimidated by psychological games. You must debate an issue, not a person or his background.

Theory wise everyone knows how brahmins are supposed to live. But there is hardly any evidence pointing to their poverty.

Say what? you were the one citing Smirthis as "Theory that represented Brahmins". When I play the same game as you do, you get upset, you don't want Theory but practicals. When I cite practicals you want theory. Drop this catch-22 now!

Which is why i also mentioned parpanars professing occupations. No begging there too.

Everybody did occupations. That doesn't mean they were rich or someone evil enough to scheme to oppress others. And "Bhavathi Bhikshantheki" is how brahmins were supposed to live some part of their life. Yes, they are supposed to beg and eat for some years.

Wonder how can anyone expect story books to be passed as history. The "poor brahmin" in tales (jataka tales?) are most probably buddhist-brahmins. Surely you are speaking of hindu purohits, not buddhist sanyasis, are you?

Who the hell is this Buddist Brahmin you coined new? We are debating Hindus. If you haven't read all those old story books, whether panchatantra or amar chitra katha, or even ramayana and Mahabharata, how am I responsible for you missing some classics?

There is strong historical proof that brahmins were a rich class. Brahmins under Vijayanagar rule as traders, army commanders, brahmins under Kadamba dynasty, brahmins as traders under cholas (ayyavole guild), like this you can find several historical evidences. Even IVC yielded the image of what is called the priest-king. Priestly clans as warriors were not uncommon. There was a long standing fight between kshatriyas and brahmins (both were militant units) (sangom sir also had posted on it).

Wrong. Those aren't brahmins. Brahmins don't take weapons and fight. And their life philosophy is not to go after wealth. And even in your imaginary world if someone did that, that is no proof they discriminated others. You are not only stretching your imagination, you are now moving into outright science fiction.

Did i say brahmins did some harm? No i did not. I only said brahmins were rich.

Lets see...aren't you the one going to say "casteism affects lot of people"... How can you make two exactly opposite claims in the same post?

Ask any man who has to battle both caste and class to make it in life.

Battle caste? for what? in what way Brahmins stood against others from going after their desires?

If you have caste (as a brahmin) but no money, you still have a social standing.

There are only two sides "brahmins, nonbrahmins". Where does the poor brahmin get his "social standing" from? From other Brahmins? Then why is it a concern of nonbrahmins? Let Rich nonbrahmins give a social standing to poor nonbrahmins. If they can't, stop blaming the brahmins for it.

Casteism does lead to discrimination. Those who neither have caste nor money are the worst hit in life.

But you just claimed the opposite a minute ago asking "did I say brahmins did harm"!

How can those who are yet to get out of the clutches of untouchability

This is getting rubbish. If Mr.X doesn't want Mr.Y to touch him, it is Mr.X's basic right. Mr.Y cannot complaint about it. For that matter I wouldn't let 90% of people (brahmins or nonbrahmins) to touch me!

What sort of reasoning is this? Why should dalits write rubbish scriptures, which only lead to their downfall in future anyways?

So, Smirthis are rubbish scriptures? FINE!!! We are finally getting somewhere. Now will you please stop citing such "rubbish scriptures" as proof of your claims? Thank you!

The point is simple: if you think some script is rubbish, dont use it as example. if you think it has impact, then rewrite another for yourself. What is so hard about this academic logic?

I don't understand why you make this so complicated:

-Brahmins are nonviolent group. They don't take weapons and fight. If you followed why Shankara became an important Guru, it is because he defeated Jains in debate but refused to behead them (which was the norm in that era). Hence, a nonviolent group could NEVER threaten or harm another group. It is a ridiculous argument to claim that they somehow oppressed a majority of people simply telling "go away! don't touch! I don't like you!". Even if they made those statements, it is their right. But that is no proof they wilfully stood against the desires and prosperity of nonbrahmins. If anyone gets the blame, you should blame the rulers for it - blame the kings and emperors.

All of you should stop finding caste-excuse to justify your economic backwardness. That won't take you anywhere, since only your own merit can bring you success. Once you start finding an excuse there is no end to it. You will go all the way back by 65M years to stake claim that you were illtreated by Dinosaurs.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Talking of Fear, read my first article where I took on the entire forum.

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/1254-how-varna-caste-system-harmed-brahmins.html

 

[subbudu1]

What I find it amusing is that Advaita is an impossible/Next to impossible philosophy to attain. It needs a lot of faith in Acharya. It is not relevant if Shankara was in favor of or against caste. I dont see how the debate will ever die down on what he wrote or what he did not write. Any dalit reading his views on castes will be shaken in his faith and deep down saying that- " I hope he did not advocate caste" This will be a lingering question and I am not sure how anyone who doubts caste can become a Shankaracharya in full confidence. One needs to shake up one's views and dry one's emotions before becoming a Shankaracharya.

A Dalit needs to revisit his complete worldview before being a Shanakaracharya , by then he would not even be a Dalit by worldview.

 

[ShivKC]

I wanted to make posts, countering the info you presented (in the above posts), last year itself. At that time i had stopped myself from doing so out of respect for you. But now i have learnt that having respect does not mean one must not speak up or stand up for the truth. I shall write a point-wise reply to your posts next week. Thanks.

what does that mean, ' not countering a persons view, just out of respect?' doest that mean, one is not valuing the views, but only worried about the person.

few months ago, it was advocated, dont go by the persons identity, but go by his posts & views..worried what happened to that stand

how great it is! some one wants NOT to question sh.naachinarkiniyan (he is just another human being like me and you), but have the audacity to question the revered Acharyal, their teachings and on top of it, making fun out of kanchi mathams ? esp, with all the artistic linguistic flowered writings in english.

should i call it as a strategy in debate?

 

[DrBarani]

A Dalit needs to revisit his complete worldview before being a Shanakaracharya , by then he would not even be a Dalit by worldview.

All these confusions exist because most nonbrahmins believe it is difficult to change their caste. If they want to be accepted among brahmin community, it is rather easy- they can change some of their value system - become vegetarian, embrace nonviolence and dharma, learn some basic rules of the game, like doing rites for ancestors, calendar driven practices. They can find a Guru who will convert them. If anyone wants, I can find them a Guru to conduct that ceremony. If they convert and rest of their ex-nonbrahmin community doesn't accept them, how can brahmins be responsible for it? NBs are the ones who use caste discrimination.

 

[subbudu1]

All these confusions exist because most nonbrahmins believe it is difficult to change their caste. If they want to be accepted among brahmin community, it is rather easy- they can change some of their value system - become vegetarian, embrace nonviolence and dharma, learn some basic rules of the game, like doing rites for ancestors, calendar driven practices. They can find a Guru who will convert them. If anyone wants, I can find them a Guru to conduct that ceremony. If they convert and rest of their ex-nonbrahmin community doesn't accept them, how can brahmins be responsible for it? NBs are the ones who use caste discrimination.

With due apologies it will take a few hundred years for orthodox brahmins to accept them until they totally forget the origins of this group. I cant predict the reaction of OBC because lot of things depend on how close to brahmins they are.

If they are highly brahminized their yardstick for superiority will let them honor only brahmins unless they are well educated as well as liberal. In Kerala the appointment of ezhava who learnt the rituals in a temple was opposed, opponents included the Nairs and the other elites of Kerala.

If an OBC is far away from brahminism he will take it as an insult to his community unless he is liberal again.

People who lie in the middle who neither hate brahminism( or ambiguous) nor too close to be it, to be overawed by the current lot of brahmins, may accept.

All this is just theory and people's attitudes are changing beyond recognition to make a concrete assessment.

 

[DrBarani]

With due apologies it will take a few hundred years for orthodox brahmins to accept them

Which is true and it is the case everywhere, even if they convert and embrace another religion. But that should not be the obstacle for someone if they want to become a brahmin. To be a brahmin is about following certain way of life, and that is independent of whether most of the society accepts it or not.

All that I am trying to say is, historically if NonBrahmins somehow felt it was good to be Brahmin, they could have converted. There were avenues to do so. Avenues exist even now. In the modern era, acceptance may not require 400 years but perhaps 2-3 generations.

 

[subbudu1]

To be a brahmin is about following certain way of life, and that is independent of whether most of the society accepts it or not.

Considering that not many brahmins themselves are able to follow the way of life, inspite of many being dynamic and exceptional, indicates that a non brahmin will be flooded with doubts on questions of rituals, mantras their value and worthiness. Is it really necessary to live a life full of doubt, rather then lead a straightforward life as a Professional enjoying modern comforts. The choice is there lest it is too late before they take a plunge into unmeasured depths of a storm.

 

[DrBarani]

Considering that not many brahmins themselves are able to follow the way of life, inspite of many being dynamic and exceptional, indicates that a non brahmin will be flooded with doubts on questions of rituals, mantras their value and worthiness. Is it really necessary to live a life full of doubt, rather then lead a straightforward life as a Professional enjoying modern comforts. The choice is there lest it is too late before they take a plunge into unmeasured depths of a storm.

Yes, what many people missed is, Brahminism is like an advanced scientific subject like Einstein's theory of relativity. Only a few study and follow it. For the rest of the people, it is a waste of time and doesn't add to their worldly comfort. Nothing wrong with that, but it is necessary to recognize that fact that Brahminism has evolved to be a complex subject and therefore, those who are looking for a stripped down version of it get disappointed.

There is no simplified version of Brahminism that can be offered as a package deal for those wanting to become Brahmins. At least that didn't exist historically. If any, it was more complex during medievel times.

However, I am of the opinion that nothing is impossible and that we CAN offer a lite-version of brahminism for those wanting to adopt it.

I will post how to do that in another page.

 

[happyhindu]

.

Haha, good try, but I am not intimidated by psychological games. You must debate an issue, not a person or his background.

Sorry sir i did not think merely mentioning my disappointment for an academic saying such things, is called "intimidating" by "psychological games".

I wholeheartedly agree we must debate the issue not the person / his background. If so, then you too wud not say this to me, you wud have addresed only the issue (shd i take this to be intimidation tactics by psychological games?):
1) But you seem to bother so much about a phantom superiority and that it somehow affected so many people.
2) You are making a mountain out of a mole.

Say what? you were the one citing Smirthis as "Theory that represented Brahmins". When I play the same game as you do, you get upset, you don't want Theory but practicals. When I cite practicals you want theory. Drop this catch-22 now!

Am not at all upset sir. When did i ever say i dont want theory but practicals? When did you cite practicals? Please can you really give me evidence that brahmins were poor in the past.

Everybody did occupations. That doesn't mean they were rich or someone evil enough to scheme to oppress others. And "Bhavathi Bhikshantheki" is how brahmins were supposed to live some part of their life. Yes, they are supposed to beg and eat for some years.

So parpanars did occupations. If so, then, what was the need for them to beg. Unless someone was a renunciate sanyasi. Are present-day brahmins claiming they descended from renunciate sanyasis? Please can you tell me why should a purohit beg when he is given things, as his fees for conducting ceremonies? Please note, we had this discussion in this forum a long back. If interested you may look up my old posts by clicking on View Posts from my profile.

Who the hell is this Buddist Brahmin you coined new? We are debating Hindus. If you haven't read all those old story books, whether panchatantra or amar chitra katha, or even ramayana and Mahabharata, how am I responsible for you missing some classics?

So sir, you are saying there were poor brahmins in ramayana, mahabharata? I can remember sudhama and drona being poor. Sir, are you saying present-day brahmins descended from brahmins of ramayana, mahabharata? Also sir, are you saying all brahmins were always poor based on these stories?

Wrong. Those aren't brahmins. Brahmins don't take weapons and fight. And their life philosophy is not to go after wealth. And even in your imaginary world if someone did that, that is no proof they discriminated others. You are not only stretching your imagination, you are now moving into outright science fiction.

There is inscriptional evidence that they were brahmins. Also sir, if we must accept stories, we must accept the list of kshatropeta-brahmanas (kshatriyas claiming to be brahmins) also. Sir, i have a request for you, please do not give me advice. Let us stick to the discussion points only. But i suppose am not clear perhaps. If sangom sir were around he cud have explained things better. Sangom sir, if you are around, can you please explain the long-standing fights between brahmins and kshatriyas to Dr.Barani please?

Lets see...aren't you the one going to say "casteism affects lot of people"... How can you make two exactly opposite claims in the same post?

I said - "Did i say brahmins did some harm? No i did not. I only said brahmins were rich". This pertained to your claims that brahmins were always poor. Not to the caste-discrimination part. Was there caste-discrimination? Yes there was. There is ample evidence from the colonial period itself how brahmins discriminated against low-castes... i suppose when the landed became landless, they did learn their lesson.

Battle caste? for what? in what way Brahmins stood against others from going after their desires?

Till date, brahmins (the orthodoxy) upholds smrithis which says a shudra cannot own wealth, cannot wear the marks of a brahmana, has to eat the remnants of an arya, can be tortured, has to be a brahmana's slave, and what not.....Yes this is caste discrimination. By upholding such smrithis as divine, the orthodoxy merely rubs salt in wounds. We had a discussion long back in this forum on the India untouched documentary:

1) YouTube - India Untouched - The Movie - Part 1
2) YouTube - India Untouched - The Movie - Part 2
3) YouTube - IN SCHOOLS - India Untouched - The Movie - Part 3
4) YouTube - India Untouched - THe Movie - Part 4
5) YouTube - India Untouched - THe Movie - Part 5
6) YouTube - sikhs in India Untouched - THe Movie - Part 6
7) YouTube - Sikhs in India Untouched (in Punjab) - The Movie - Part 7
8) YouTube - India Untouched - THe Movie - Part 8
9) YouTube - India Untouched - THe Movie - Part 9

Watch this Kashi high priest:YouTube - India Untouched - The Movie - Part 2 – It is for those who claim ‘brahmins’ do not 'oppress' today.

There are only two sides "brahmins, nonbrahmins". Where does the poor brahmin get his "social standing" from? From other Brahmins? Then why is it a concern of nonbrahmins? Let Rich nonbrahmins give a social standing to poor nonbrahmins. If they can't, stop blaming the brahmins for it.

A poor brahmin gets his social standing from his caste. The poor dalit is not as lucky.

But you just claimed the opposite a minute ago asking "did I say brahmins did harm"!

i suppose my post was not clear. I was trying to go in segements, from the wealth part to the discrimination part. Anyways, hopefully am clearer now. Yes, brahmins have caused social harm by involving in caste-discrimination.

This is getting rubbish. If Mr.X doesn't want Mr.Y to touch him, it is Mr.X's basic right. Mr.Y cannot complaint about it. For that matter I wouldn't let 90% of people (brahmins or nonbrahmins) to touch me!

We are talking of how people justify the untouchability of smrithis as being applicable in the modern world in secular places. You may not allow anyone to touch you, but that does not mean a group has to remain untouchables by birth by caste.

So, Smirthis are rubbish scriptures? FINE!!! We are finally getting somewhere. Now will you please stop citing such "rubbish scriptures" as proof of your claims? Thank you!

Yes they are rubbish. If they are rubbish, why are they upheld by mutts? Why should it be the face of our orthodoxy?

The point is simple: if you think some script is rubbish, dont use it as example. if you think it has impact, then rewrite another for yourself. What is so hard about this academic logic?

Sorry sir, but this academic logic is ridiculous. You are expecting dalits to write that 'we are superior'...(????)...makes no sense really...

I don't understand why you make this so complicated:

-Brahmins are nonviolent group. They don't take weapons and fight. If you followed why Shankara became an important Guru, it is because he defeated Jains in debate but refused to behead them (which was the norm in that era). Hence, a nonviolent group could NEVER threaten or harm another group. It is a ridiculous argument to claim that they somehow oppressed a majority of people simply telling "go away! don't touch! I don't like you!". Even if they made those statements, it is their right. But that is no proof they wilfully stood against the desires and prosperity of nonbrahmins. If anyone gets the blame, you should blame the rulers for it - blame the kings and emperors.

Not true. Brahmins have been a group involving in warfare and trade.

All of you should stop finding caste-excuse to justify your economic backwardness. That won't take you anywhere, since only your own merit can bring you success. Once you start finding an excuse there is no end to it. You will go all the way back by 65M years to stake claim that you were illtreated by Dinosaurs.

Looks like the advice applies one-way. Anyways, everyone knows caste-excuse is not going to help anyone. Its brahmins who make a lot of noise claiming reservations should be removed.

 

[ShivKC]

quote happy hindu ""Theory wise everyone knows how brahmins are supposed to live. But there is hardly any evidence pointing to their poverty"


theory wise every muslim is supposed to fast 40 days and not touch liquor.. check out in bombay wine shops, grand parties of khans, and dons of dawood

theory wise, every jew is supposed to be a kosher and wandering like gypsies of desert land. check it out with americans or mark zukenberg.. they will give a peace of mind..

theory wise, every christian is supposed to be a good samaritan and follow the way christ lived. escobar, hitler and all the mafias. ask why pope is donning a such a huge financial empire and assets, beyond any human imagination?

what are you expecting out of a 'THEORY WISE' tamilbrahmin? by any chance tamilbrahzmins are the only easy shooting target? do you expect every tamilbrahmin to carry a begging bowl made out of Pooshanikkai, for his daily meal?

if so, check out with the rest, and they would say, thats the world they are all living in, and still they follow what they were told to do so, in line with this modern world, without loosing their respective identities.

 

[ShivKC]

Sorry sir i did not think merely mentioning my disappointment for an academic saying such things, is called "intimidating" by "psychological games"..

i think, its better to have a clarification about every ones individual academic credentials, for many of us here are more inclined to the supporting proof from scholarly works. there are here lot of professors who had shared their links to their university, and their research papers, some to their company profiles.

i know, you are a very transparent person, and would appreciate if you could also share/prove your academic qualifications,vide any university url/or published pappers. this will help you to shut the mouth of those to taunters.. hope you will come clear on that, cos , like me, many of us here are more appreciative towards your knowledge (if not for google), and wish you to come up open on this, with academic proofs. thank you