Political and Social Issues concerned with TBs

[Vivek_V]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

@ Sri Sarma-61

"I find from old posts that Shri Nara was/is? a very staunch Sri vaishnava brahmin (by birth also), but has now become an
atheist and admits that. so your query is not relevant."

Okay. From Nara's post I felt he was saying brahmins don't accept others as brahmins. What is
relevant is if we accept them as respectable humans. Nara can speak of his identity or be frank of who he is at his own wish.

"I think he is referring to seven previous generations here- the pitrus."

Yes, you are correct, my mistake. But again, what is your say about this claim Nara makes about "brahminism"?

"The prevalent mindset here in many members is that "i am a brahmin, becasue my parents are brahmins. i am great
therefore." it is purely psychology and unwillingness to entertain any opposite views."

Now I ask your personal view - do all the brahmins in this community share same views? Most likely not. I can hardly see one single coherent "brahmin view" here.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Nara - Skewered view the reason for continuing hatred.

"Vivek, Those who criticize Brahminism do so for what it is, not to, as you put it, "become Brahmins and earn respect". I
reject Brahminism because it espouses a supremacist ideology. Varna/jati system is fundamentally flawed. Take a look at
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar's pamphlet titled The Annihilation of Caste. That should give you a good idea where I stand. "

I would still like you to explain where you stand. A forum is a place to explain your views, not direct others to sites and make them read pages. I would like you to explain the term "brahminism" which has conveniently been tossed around to speak of casteism when caste discrimination is prevalent in Indian society and its is infact absent in many philosophical works written by brahmins.

What you claim is the repeated revile that was used to strengthen anti-brahminism. In short, how does it become justified to claim "brahminism" is just caste discrimination when many works don't speak of caste discrimination? When other castes did the practice too? Its a skewered view - your war is against casteism, right? Or is it against brahmins? =)

My other question to you was in regard to this particular statement: "Brahmins, in all aspects of their lives, conduct
themselves in a way that accepts nobody as a Brahmin other than those who have both parents who in turn have
Brahmins for parents."

I don't see why others should be accepted as brahmins for the sake of it, or why "accepts nobody as a Brahmin" is even a complain. I would rather that they gain respect for who they are - every community, including brahmins need to define their culture in every era.

I believe all people to be treated with respect, neither do I see "brahminism" (if we are to speak of brahmins and the philosophy they wrote) works to ill-treat all others. Read my (next) post to Brahmanyan.

"Take a look at Dr. B.R.Ambedkar's pamphlet titled The Annihilation of Caste. That should give you a good idea where I
stand. "

Okay. Ambedkar still only speaks of a time in Maharashtra - to speak of "brahminism" would be to see a bigger picture. While you are ready to acknowledge Ambedkar's struggle as I am too; are you ready to acknowledge the struggle against casteism of brahmins? Instead, its easy for you to say "Those who criticize Brahminism do so for what it is".

What is "brahminism" to you? Does it include the philosophies of brahmins who spoke even against caste discrimination? Of men like Tagore, of Bhartiyar, of Basva Swami?

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@Sri Brahmanyanji

"I never had the occasion of facing enmity of any kind from other communities because of my Caste during my student
days. Not even from my friends who were admirers of Periyar in those days. Yes, there used to be simple jokes on
Brahmin Tamil or way of living, just like the ones we hear on Sardarjis today . Nothing more. "

Thank you for that insight. I can however draw an analogy to Muslims in Mumbai - in the level of schools, we tend to
know people personally. So our generalized biases are shut when we meet them - but it doesn't change the fact that
organizations like the Shiv Sena have a negative opinion of them. The only difference between the DMK in TN and Shiv
Sena in Mumbai and Maharashtra is that the latter is not the ruling party. Would it be wrong to say that TBs were
institutionally exiled from TN? What would you say?

"With advancement in education and communication, Varnasrama has almost vanished from our social life now. It is my
view that Brahmins are the in the lead for change."

The ruling political party in TN would have us believe that everything of social negativity came from the brahmins.

Brahmins have changed indeed, like everyone because society has changed. But would it be a right point of viw to say we are drifting today to goodness, from an early originally-evil culture we were part of throughout history? Is this casteism and degradation, a perversion of our
culture, or its original form? Why should casteism practiced by all groups to the downtrodden be called "brahmin-ism"?

What do you think sir? Why would brahmins have propagated the epics - which has inside tales against caste discrimination, or appealing the symathy? Why would they propagate ideas of king of the devas falling in his arrogance? Or of brahmins like Ravan too? Or keep record of the Manisha Panchakam? What is the message of Vedanta? Or of the Upanishads? Why all of these wasn't called "brahminism" is reflected by the political atmosphere that took shape.

In the shortest sense, anti-brahmin parties have people beleiving that a classless, happy society with no distinction of rich or
poor; affluent or ordinary people would have existed if it wasn't for the brahmins. Would such a point of view take into
consideration the other shades of casteism? I feel it doesn't.

Instead, it loads the historical blame of everything on to brahmins, ignoring our contributions and thereby having
successfully demonized us. What I typed here in bold is the crux of the issue - a question of what our culture has been
potrayed as, even when casteism is practices thoughout our society.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Nara]

My other question to you was in regard to this particular statement: "Brahmins, in all aspects of their lives, conduct themselves in a way that accepts nobody as a Brahmin other than those who have both parents who in turn have Brahmins for parents."

I don't see why others should be accepted as brahmins for the sake of it, or why "accepts nobody as a Brahmin" is even a complain.

Vivek, I give below my statement in its entirety from post #123 from the thread Theory of Aryan Invasion and Interpretting Scriptures. (BTW, I request you to give at least the post # and the title of the thread when you cite passages from a different thread.)

Many people in this forum routinely say that those who can see, or persevere to see Brahman, is Brahmin. Of course this is complete nonsense. Brahmins, in all aspects of their lives, conduct themselves in a way that accepts nobody as a Brahmin other than those who have both parents who in turn have Brahmins for parents. This is true for all Brahminical religious institutions, whether it is Sankarachariyar, or SV, or Madhwa.
​

I don't know why you omitted the first two sentences of what I said, highlighted above. They give context and are crucial to understand what I am saying.

In addition, please take a look at the first couple of pages of the thread "Enge Brahmanana?". It is routine here to claim that a true Brahmin is one with all the sublime qualities. Abdul Kalam is a true Brahmin, etc., etc. The sad thing is, those who make these statements are blissfully unaware of the rank hypocrisy inherent in such thinking.

On the one hand they give a very self-serving definition of who a real Brahmin is, and on the other hand they conduct themselves in a way that accepts nobody as Brahmin other than those who have Brahmins for birth parents going back seven generations. It is this hypocrisy that I am pointing out. Why would I want to be part of this hypocrisy? I don't want to be accepted as a Brahmin, I don't want to be called a Brahmin, I don't want to be recognized as a Brahmin, and I don't want to be a Brahmin.

Part of the problem is the terminology itself. The term Brahmin can be anything to anybody. For the orthodox Brahmins there is no question, to be a Brahmin one must be born to Brahmin parents. There was no problem with this orthodox view for a long while. But, it has become increasingly untenable in the modern secular India that is a liberal democracy.

The modern Brahmin, with secular education and making a living in the modern liberal India, is caught in a dilemma. They see how indefensible a birth-based caste system is, but yet can't quite jettison their Brahmin identity. They are unwilling to contradict their much revered god-like Brahmin acharyas. So, what do they do, they obfuscate. They come up with such utter nonsense as Abdul Kalam is a true Brahmin. To say Abdul Kalam is a true Brahmin is to insult him as a person and to smear the followers of Islam. I am reasonably sure the people who do this think they are actually being nice to Abdul Kalam, and I am also reasonably sure they don't even see the hypocrisy. In a way I find orthodox Brahmins more acceptable, as they are honest and are ready to face the criticisms of their orthodox views. These modern Brahmins are a hypocritical lot.

I would still like you to explain where you stand. A forum is a place to explain your views, not direct others to sites and make them read pages.

Vivek, on this subject of Brahminism, I have explained and explained my stand over and over, so much so, many people of this forum have accused me of having a single-point agenda and wished that I would shut up. Now, you come along, you want me to explain again. Alright, I will do so, but I am going to be brief. For a more detailed accounting of my views you have to do some reading from the archives of this forum.

To me, Brahminism is the cultural and religious ideology and practice of people who believe in the Vedas and the Varna system. No religion is completely wicked, it is usually wrapped in some elevating messages such as love, kindness, truth, etc. Brahminism is no exception, it has its share of philosophical treatises, etc. But, it also has Manu Dharma Shastra as an important and sacred text. Shankara and Ramanuja, (I bet Madwa too, but I don't have the exact reference) make references to MDS as a valid text and also make some vile statements about Shudras in their Bashyas to Brhmma Sutra.

You may want to downplay MDS, but the orthodoxy, the ones much revered by all Brahmins, firmly believes in the inerrancy of MDS. So, to me Brahminism is like a sack of rice mixed in with at least 50% worms. The best approach is to throw the whole thing out.

In short, how does it become justified to claim "brahminism" is just caste discrimination when many works don't speak of caste discrimination? When other castes did the practice too? Its a skewered view - your war is against casteism, right? Or is it against brahmins? =)

Vivek, I have said this to you before in a different thread, and let me say it again, if you don't find something in some texts does not mean it does not exist. Also, if you are unaware, that does not mean such things as "caste discrimination" are not mentioned in those texts. There is enough textual (see Azhvar pasurams, Sankara and Ramanuja Bhashyams, Bio of Ramanuja, story of Thirunalaippovar nayanmar) and epigraphical evidence to show the existence of elaborate caste system, and that out-castes were not allowed to live in the village and had to live in cheri. This is still the reality of Brahminism, practiced by both B and NB, but designed and justified primarily by Brahmins.

Also, IMO, any person who thinks of him as belonging to a particular caste, B or NB, is a Brahminist. A few months back there was a self-proclaimed eater of rat meat, who, IMO, is as true a follower of Brahminism as any orthodox Brahmin.

What is "brahminism" to you? Does it include the philosophies of brahmins who spoke even against caste discrimination? Of men like Tagore, of Bhartiyar, of Basva Swami?

Basavanna rejected Vedas and Varna outright, so he is certainly not a Brahmin or follower of Brahminism. Tagore and Bharathiyar are of different kind. They both wanted to reform Brahminism, but failed in that attempt miserably -- Brahminism is as strong as ever. They had right motivation, but did not go far enough.

Cheers!

 

[sarma-61]

@ Sri Sarma-61



Shri Vivek Sir,

I don't think I am in any way qualified or able to debate with you. Still, these are my views:-

1. Okay. From Nara's post I felt he was saying brahmins don't accept others as brahmins. What is
relevant is if we accept them as respectable humans. Nara can speak of his identity or be frank of who he is at his own wish.

I feel those who have been accepted, for whatever reasons, as great, by us brahmins, are held in higher esteem - even as yogis, irrespective of the caste in which they were born; take Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi, Aurobindo Ghosh, Kabirdas, Shirdi Saibaba, Puttaparti Saibaba, Swami Nityananda, and so on. But our people will never say something like they were brahmins, or brahmin-like. But take the cases of Ramana Maharshi, Shri Shri Shri Ravisankar, etc., - these people are not only held in higher esteem - even as yogis, but also considered "brahmins". You see, thus the brahmin-ness is brahmin-hood and that "hood" can be obtained only by being born to brahmin parents.

I think perhaps Shri Nara sir, is also telling same thing, but I don't know.

From the above, it follows that this "brahmin-hood" is a must for being considered as brahmin, not only for the immediate parents of one who stakes a claim (to brahminhood) but, in turn, to his grand-parents on either side, and so on to the dimmest past.

2. Now I ask your personal view - do all the brahmins in this community share same views? Most likely not. I can hardly see one single coherent "brahmin view" here.

Myconsidered view is that our community is on this view only.You may find people giving lip-service to a general brahmin-ness based on qualities, but, in their heart of hearts, it will not be there. I will recommend one test - tell a TB to invite a learned NB scholar in sanskrit, vedas, etc., and is clean, of good nature and all, as a "brahmanan" to partake of the pitrubhojanam in sraaddham, and see for yourself whether it will be accepted; on the contrary, you suggest an ugly, uncouth, illiterate "born-brahmin" who does not even know to pronounce ததாஸ்து properly, and it will be accepted, particularly if the "dakshinai" to be given is lower!!

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Sarma-61 - Ambiguity of meanings and One personal experience

". But take the cases of Ramana Maharshi, Shri Shri Shri Ravisankar, etc., - these people are not only held in higher esteem
- even as yogis, but also considered "brahmins". You see, thus the brahmin-ness is brahmin-hood and that "hood" can be
obtained only by being born to brahmin parents."

This would then mean that brahmins follow a bloodline - this bloodline however was never spoke of. Now what is
brahminhood? A child born to brahmin parents, that drinks has "brahminhood"? This statement also doesn't explain the
useage of brahmin in the way it was used in India once - this is how it is even used in Buddhism.
People like Gandhi, Ghosh, Sai Babas, were all in a much recent time when the idea of brahmin was exclusively to speak
of a community (the "brahmin" community).

This is where the ambiguity rises - one from brahmin, as defined, and two from brahmins the community.
The first usage is completely discarded and we know it existed only from texts. Further, there are many similar terms like Sadhu, Sanyasi, Rishi etc which seem closely tied with the lifestyle of penance, austerity, moderation of living etc - all attributed to brahmins too, but hard to say if being brahmin was defined by it.

"You may find people giving lip-service to a general brahmin-ness based on qualities, but, in their heart of hearts, it will
not be there."

Consider two men, one a person born to NBs, and other to Brahmin parents - they come to a village in Kumbakonam to
live in the house of an orthodox brahmin family. Consider, that they are given shelter (HH and Nara now have raised
eyebrows, "Is that possible?", haha).
The NB happens to be vegetarian and doesn't drink, the person born to brahmin parents drinks - who do you think repels
them more? What lineage is written of the brahmins?

"I will recommend one test - tell a TB to invite a learned NB scholar in sanskrit, vedas, etc., and is clean, of good nature
and all, as a "brahmanan" to partake of the pitrubhojanam in sraaddham, and see for yourself whether it will be accepted;
on the contrary, you suggest an ugly, uncouth, illiterate "born-brahmin" who does not even know to pronounce ததாஸ்து
properly, and it will be accepted, particularly if the "dakshinai" to be given is lower!!"

Is it true what you say? When I went to Sri Rangam temple with my mother I saw from a distance a white man, clearly
with a thread across his torso. Was I hallucinating? No. This was undoubtedly a white (ie. European-like) man, considered
a brahmin by the temple. I took a video of him, I don't know if was disturbed by that, but he just continued with his
reading (of the Vishnu shashranamam I think). I found he did have a small European/American-like accent! My guess was that this man (quite old, clearly 50+) took interest in studying these things and came to become a preist here. I didn't want to disturb while he was reading so I waited (I waited near him, while my mom did the "pradakshinams" etc).

I would have asked him details of his life and how he came to be there, but unfortunately it was time to leave. As I was exiting the temple I spoke to one of the preists there as to how a white man got initiated as a preist. He told me that he proved to know the vedas, shastras etc
and knows Tamil, Malayalam, Sanskrit and Kannada etc. This is true, anyone can verify by visiting this temple.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Nara - Its not a bag of 50 percent worms; Your biases are similar to those you accuse and my reason is given here

"It is routine here to claim that a true Brahmin is one with all the sublime qualities. Abdul Kalam is a true Brahmin, etc.,
etc. The sad thing is, those who make these statements are blissfully unaware of the rank hypocrisy inherent in such
thinking. "

I deride those who make the claim (like saying Abdul Kalam is brahmin). The point however, is that many qualities - like
regard for education, vegetarianism, non-drinking, discipline of life were closely associated with brahmins and their lifestyle and in many ways is today.
Vegetarianism too is seen as a positive quality by many brahmins about their traditional lifestyle - but casteism,
untouchability etc is not. It was part of their lifestyle once. This is how any culture seems to have its good and dark side
too.

Here is where I make the crux of my point. On one hand, those who coined the term
"brahminism" which came with an echo of use from DK parties' brahmin-haters, the qualities included speak of only what is
the negative aspect of the past. On the other hand, certain brahmins in the community, note how people like Abdul Kalam were influenced
by brahmin teachers, and in some way by brahmin culture. So, when Abdul Kalam makes it successful they are quick to
claim he was "brahmin".

All in all, I feel yours' as well as those brahmins who made that comment are only willing to see one side of a thing - the
negative, if they don't pertain to an identity; and the positive, if they pertain to its identity. So you carry their exact same bias, only directed oppositely.

"Part of the problem is the terminology itself. The term Brahmin can be anything to anybody. For the orthodox Brahmins
there is no question, to be a Brahmin one must be born to Brahmin parents."

The word brahmin was not heriditary at one time. A person was considered "brahmin/brahmana" in accordance to certain
qualities - likewise kshatriyas etc. This is why it was used (in the same way) to refer some Buddhist monks too. Read Buddhist
scriptures if you are skeptical of my claim. Today, its based on caste-identity.

"On the one hand they give a very self-serving definition of who a real Brahmin is, and on the other hand they conduct
themselves in a way that accepts nobody as Brahmin other than those who have Brahmins for birth parents going back
seven generations. It is this hypocrisy that I am pointing out. Why would I want to be part of this hypocrisy? "

Then you are free to question their claim (question this to the ones who made the claim). You don't need to think you
are "part of this hypocrisy". I am a Tamil Iyer myself. Doesn't mean anything even Shankaracharya says, and which I
disagree with makes me feel apprehensive of my identity as a Tamil Iyer - because above that I am myself. I have been born into an identity, but I am an individual and chose my own path. The "hypocrisy" or the duplication of meaning is not something they are inventing. At one time, brahmana was a term used to a people of a certain quality or discipline - associated with education, learning etc. In more modern times however, this is used as a community term.

"But, it has become increasingly untenable in the modern secular India that is a liberal democracy. "

The only definition that existed in modern India, in the college forms I filled etc, was "brahmin as a community". The earliest meaning of this word was never brought to light in discussion because brahmins today are (definited) as a community. It doesn't change the fact however, that the word had another meaning from which it divereged in time. Records of scriptures attests this fact.

"The modern Brahmin, with secular education and making a living in the modern liberal India, is caught in a dilemma.
They see how indefensible a birth-based caste system is, but yet can't quite jettison their Brahmin identity."

Nobody has to "jettison" their identity - neither is it possible in the way society views us today. So, I am sorry if you are a brahmin-born and hate the community =) .

The very present brahmin culture would have come at a time, through people's ideas - again with people's ideas they are free to question and change it.

"Vivek, on this subject of Brahminism, I have explained and explained my stand over and over, so much so, many people
of this forum have accused me of having a single-point agenda and wished that I would shut up. Now, you come along,
you want me to explain again. Alright, I will do so, but I am going to be brief. For a more detailed accounting of my
views you have to do some reading from the archives of this forum."

From your post of "rat-meat" it does leave you to explain your POV as a level-headed idea or one posted through hatred and biases. I would read the forum posts in time.

"To me, Brahminism is the cultural and religious ideology and practice of people who believe in the Vedas and the Varna
system. No religion is completely wicked, it is usually wrapped in some elevating messages such as love, kindness, truth,
etc. Brahminism is no exception, it has its share of philosophical treatises, etc."

The core of it which is indeed the upanishads, and the vedanta speaks against ill-treatment (of anything). Its not "some elevating messages" - its volumes of it and the very core of it.

What was the original form of the varna? Was it birth-based? The Upanishads, and the Vedanta itself which is considered the core of brahmin philosophy doesn't even allude to casteist thinking, infact the contrary. Social heirarchies exist everywhere, and will exist - what matters is how we treat people. Tales carried forward by brahmins do speak against casteism. - like story of Uttanga, the Manisha Panchakam.

Secondly, varna system pertained to society - practiced even amongsts castes that weren't brahmins. To blame brahmins for this merely because they were placed on top of the varna system is wrong. It was a doing of every single community (of various castes) who practiced it. So to make the word "brahminism" synonymous with "caste discrimination" is itself anti-brahmin in the way its been named.

A text like the Manisha Panchakam has been recorded, saved and propagated by brahmins and its very message which goes so far as to even speak of the bias of one considered a great man is in truth a strong attack on what caste identities are - propagated by brahmins! So speaking against casteism is not a mixed bag thing among brahmins - it finds a more relevant place in our traditional philosophy than the law books (like Manu Smriti). All those epics, made into literary treasures were propagated by brahmins which recount how arrogant people (including
brahmins) fell. This itself sums up the philosophy. Whether or not the brahmin community reads it today and finds it relevant is their doing - it becomes a bias from your side to label that as not brahminism, and what casteism brahmins followed (like the rest of society once) as "brahminism".

"To me, Brahminism is the cultural and religious ideology and practice of people who believe in the Vedas and the Varna
system."

What makes you feel those who practice caste discrimination take inspiration from the vedas? The original means of how
the varna system came or was practiced is itself a question.

"Brahminism is like a sack of rice mixed in with at least 50%; worms. The best approach is to throw the whole thing out."

Atleast you have a dark sense of humour, or perhaps you had a bad experience being a grocer once.

Comparing something that has come through centuries with every generation probably having put its intellectual hands
into it, to a bag of rice with worms is a poor analogy. The right thing to do would be to challenge the very culture
you were born into and argue from points that are against what you wish to establish. Puranas, Upanishads, Vedanta etc are strongly have a philosophy that mention about the Self (irrespective of caste).

Did the Europeans throw every aspect of their culture when they did the Renaissance? That is impossible, because it is how you were born and how society sees you - this is why it becomes relevant to question and challenge it (in our own identity).

"Basavanna rejected Vedas and Varna outright, so he is certainly not a Brahmin or follower of Brahminism. Tagore and Bharathiyar are of different kind. They both wanted to reform Brahminism, but failed in that attempt miserably -- Brahminism is as strong as ever."

Nothing to say that Basvana rejected the vedas. So many social reformers didn't reject the vedas. Why is Bharatiyar a "different kind"? I can see your attempt here - it is to say that brahmin-borns who had strayed away from our culture were good, while others who were part of it, were casteist because you see caste discrimination as integral to brahmin philosophy (which you call "brahminism"?). The point is clearly, that the Manisha Panchakam itself raises a valid point against caste ill-treatment. Your bias would wish to ignore it, which is why I told Brahmanyanam a very important point:

"But would it be a right point of viw to say we are drifting today to goodness, from an early originally-evil culture we were part of throughout history? Is this casteism and degradation, a perversion of our culture, or its original form? Why should casteism practiced by all groups to the downtrodden be called "brahmin-ism"? " (post # 28)


Now I leave you to answer that question. Till now, you or Happyhindu have echoed casteist practices in brahmin society - without ever:

1. Highlighting the fact that vedanta, upanishads etc but by going on your own interpretations with you tapping Happyhindu on her back.

2. Considering that it was practiced by the whole society - together, and in various levels - even amongst low catses.
So, your efforts to bring out the issue seem more to me like those to attack the legacy of brahmins, not to probe to the truth and see casteism for what it is.

"There is enough textual (see Azhvar pasurams, Sankara and Ramanuja Bhashyams, Bio of Ramanuja, story of Thirunalaippovar nayanmar) and epigraphical evidence to show the existence of elaborate caste system, and that out-castes were not allowed to live in the village and had to live in cheri."

Yes, but outcastes weren't allowed in villages or houses of other castes too. Casteism was throughout society, but brahmin tradition clearly had points were the orthodoxy was itself against casteist - which is something you wish to reject because of what I can only presume is a bias. The stories in our epics clearly speak against casteism - like story of Uttanga. You still will not consider, or explain as to WHY the brahmins chose to record and propagate the Manisha Panchakam.

"This is still the reality of Brahminism, practiced by both B and NB, but designed and justified primarily by Brahmins."

It is the reality of your bias to call it "brahminism" when you acknowledge it is practiced by upper castes.

How is it that volumes and volumes in the upanishads, vedanta which speak of the "Self" irrespective of caste doesn't becomes considered as "brahminism" by you? Or the Manisha Panchakam? How does casteism which you yourself admit as being followed by Bs and NBs become called only "Brahmin"-ism.

"Also, IMO, any person who thinks of him as belonging to a particular caste, B or NB, is a Brahminist. A few months back there was a self-proclaimed eater of rat meat, who, IMO, is as true a follower of Brahminism as any orthodox Brahmin."

Its not just the individual who "thinks" they belong to a caste - its society too! Castes were made as a job division to, would you claim it was made to ill-treat people? I can only say that your view on this is merely born of hatred for brahmins, which I am quiet maturely used to. Its this which lets you making them the object of blame - that view however doesn't correctly describe the problem or its solution. Many NB upper castes who practiced their own form of casteism will still be called "Brahminist" by you. The point is their arrogance-driven-pride comes of their own life and its previlages - nothing to do with brahmins. Would you go so far as to say that social ill-treatment of people anywhere as to do with brahmins? =)

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Nara]

Vivek, I am sure I cannot convince you, and as you keep repeating, you will always see me as biased. So, I think it is best to leave this matter as one of those issues where we are not going to agree upon. Let me make one or two remarks more as clarification than as answers or questions.

What makes you feel those who practice caste discrimination take inspiration from the vedas?

Here is what Sankarachariyar Swami says in Kamakoti.org:

"What the authors of the Smrtis have done is to present us in an orderly fashion what is already contained in the Vedas. The Vedic word cannot and must not be changed at any time and on any account. The same applies to the rules and laws laid down in the Smrtis."
​

Apparently, this is in response to people requesting the Acharya to modify the Manu to make it less unpalatable.

You still will not consider, or explain as to WHY the brahmins chose to record and propagate the Manisha Panchakam.

Sometime back Shri Sangom posted an article on this matter, look for it and read it, it is instructive.

Would you go so far as to say that social ill-treatment of people anywhere as to do with brahmins?

Social ill-treatment on the basis of caste is a deliberate product of Brahminism.

Cheers!

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Shri.Nara said in post 29(posted on 22nd January,2011:
"A few months back there was a self proclaimed eater of rat meat who,IMO,is as true a follower of Brahminism as any orthodox Brahmin.
Persons who have read an old thread "British are to be blamed" can presume whom Shri.Nara is referring to. I think this reference could have been avoided for the following reasons.
The concerned person is now not participating in the discussions and he may not get an opportunity to offer his view point.
A nonvegetarian can eat any meat and I appreciate that former member for being frank and informing everyone about his food habit.If all members of his community are ratmeat eaters,I think others need not
be concerned till those ratmeat eaters force others to eat the same stuff.
I do not know whether Shri.Nara is biased with the former member merely because he is eater of ratmeat or because in that thread he supported the caste system and also supported Brahmins.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Nara - Explaining it in short again

"Vivek, I am sure I cannot convince you, and as you keep repeating, you will always see me as biased. So, I think it is best to leave this matter as one of those issues where we are not going to agree upon. "

You cannot convince anyone - because to say you are unbiased is as unbelievable as saying 2 and 2 makes 5. If you believe I am being unfair on you, you can clarify your comments on "rat meat" and other things you spoke. I may have missed a context. In anycase, you are left to explain how eating rat meat makes one a "true follower". Was Adi Shankaracharya a false follower of the very line of thought he taught? How is it that Manisha Panchakam is irrelevant to "Brahminism", that you would have to link it with everything damning and evil?

"Here is what Sankarachariyar Swami says in Kamakoti.org:
"What the authors of the Smrtis have done is to present us in an orderly fashion what is already contained in the Vedas. The Vedic word cannot and must not be changed at any time and on any account. The same applies to the rules and laws laid down in the Smrtis." "

Swamis all over say many opinions. Who is the authority and who decides? Its like asking 10,000 KG students to assign a surgeon when none of them have not the slightest clue of it.

Further, while you chose to see such comments, highlight it, spread it and believe it; you are unwilling to even give space the notion that a matter like the Manisha Panchakam was recorded and propagated by brahmins in the past to counter the very preachings of men like these. This is why your entire post doesn't speak of it. Yet you claim you are not biased.

I want all to take a good look at this and the opinion Nara chooses to have - choose the worst to judge us, skipping everything else. However, this is not particular of Nara, hatred is seeded from this fact that people tend to judge the others in similar fashion if they wish to revile against them. Now what Nara can explain is why this Swami's comment is more important to be regarded as "Brahminism" than something like the Manisha Panchakam. Underlying fact is that society (as a whole) has degraded and puts forth its most ugly side. This has nothing to do with brahmins in particular, but is a phenomenon of our society - practiced even by those NBs who hate brahmins.

"Social ill-treatment on the basis of caste is a deliberate product of Brahminism."

And maybe you can explain how NBs treating lower castes shabbily has to do with brahmins?
The word "Brahmin-ism"itself spells your bias (as it does of the people and parties that coined the term).

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Nara]

I do not know whether Shri.Nara is biased with the former member merely because he is eater of ratmeat or because in that thread he supported the caste system and also supported Brahmins.

Dear BK sir, I have no problem anyone eating anything they want. I am not one who believes in Satvika, Rajas, and Tamasic foods. I think one's food habit has nothing to do with the character of a person. Some say Hitler was a vegetarian. Some of the cannibals from New Guinea I am sure meet the very definition of அந்தணர் of Thiruvalluvar.

The reason I cited Senthil is that even though he readily admitted to eating rat meat -- what that would make him to be according to Brahminism is well known and I shudder to even mention -- he still was an ardent supporter of caste system. This made him into a follower and a defender of Brahminism. This is the point I was trying to make, perhaps unsuccessfully given your comment.

BTW, let me stress, I did not say anything about Senthil that he did not himself advocate quite passionately.

The point was to clarify that followers and defenders of Brahminism are not necessarily born as Brahmins.

Hope this clarifies ....

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Shri,Nara,
Thank you for your clarification.
Recently I read in Facebook(I go through 'ANCIENT INDIA AWAKENED","THE GLOBAL HINDUS" and "THE BHARAT SWABHIMAN") that there are different kind of 'Athiests' and "Believers" in a tabular Form.
ALSO that if someone is 'Athiest" today, he can become a true 'Devotee' tommorrow. No one should be under the false impression that such a person is a fallen soul( in the eyes of the Beleiver).
SAINT SOORDAS IS ONE SUCH EXAMPLE.
I do not know anything about Saint Soordas.Knowledgeable members may explain his story.
I only wish the same thing happens to you soon.

 

[sangom]

@ Sri Sarma-61 - Ambiguity of meanings and One personal experience

". But take the cases of Ramana Maharshi, Shri Shri Shri Ravisankar, etc., - these people are not only held in higher esteem
- even as yogis, but also considered "brahmins". You see, thus the brahmin-ness is brahmin-hood and that "hood" can be
obtained only by being born to brahmin parents."

This would then mean that brahmins follow a bloodline - this bloodline however was never spoke of. Now what is
brahminhood? A child born to brahmin parents, that drinks has "brahminhood"? This statement also doesn't explain the useage of brahmin in the way it was used in India once - this is how it is even used in Buddhism.
People like Gandhi, Ghosh, Sai Babas, were all in a much recent time when the idea of brahmin was exclusively to speak of a community (the "brahmin" community).

This is where the ambiguity rises - one from brahmin, as defined, and two from brahmins the community.
The first usage is completely discarded and we know it existed only from texts. Further, there are many similar terms like Sadhu, Sanyasi, Rishi etc which seem closely tied with the lifestyle of penance, austerity, moderation of living etc - all attributed to brahmins too, but hard to say if being brahmin was defined by it.

Shri Vivek,

In my view there is no ambiguity. What I am trying to detail or explain is the reality as it exists today (and has been there for the last 2 or 3 centuries), because they have become the law as a result of practice for sufficiently long time. You try to cite some scriptures or texts which depict that the term "brAhmana:" was used in a perfectly eclectic sense to any one who proved to have the necessary aptitudes and qualifications, and then want to establish that it is I (and perhaps people like Nara also) who are twisting, creating ambiguity and all.

Incidentally I would like to know the sacred texts - considered older than Ramayana and Mahabharata, because these texts show the type of casteist thinking which I am talking about -, with chapter and other references, based on which you claim the golden era of eclectic brahminism not based on birth was the law here in bharatavarsha.

Citing one uttaṃka or one manīṣāpaṃcakaṃ to prove your claim will not suffice because in the same Mahabharata, there is a lot of casteist advices, and for the single instance of manīṣāpaṃcakaṃ, Adi Sankara is supposed to have held the view that "knowledge of brahman springs from inquiry into the words of the Upanishads, and the knowledge of brahman that shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other way.[32] Moreover, Shankara was committed to the caste system.[33] He also believed that the most important access to highest truth was Vedic texts, and that access to these liberating texts should be socially restricted to upper-caste males.[33]" Adi Shankara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further he is held by Nambootiris to have authored the "Saankara Smriti" which is casteist to the worst. Therefore, I request you to give refernces to the instances in which Sankara unequivocally states that his advaita and the jeevanmukti which follows therefrom, can be attained by people of all castes, including the 'pancamas'.

"You may find people giving lip-service to a general brahmin-ness based on qualities, but, in their heart of hearts, it will
not be there."

Consider two men, one a person born to NBs, and other to Brahmin parents - they come to a village in Kumbakonam to live in the house of an orthodox brahmin family. Consider, that they are given shelter (HH and Nara now have raised eyebrows, "Is that possible?", haha).
The NB happens to be vegetarian and doesn't drink, the person born to brahmin parents drinks - who do you think repels them more? What lineage is written of the brahmins?

This is a hypothetical question. I had given a test. But instead of answering it you have given another. In this case the answer will depend on individual preferences and can be one of the following:
1. Both are considered equal and the one who is willing to pay higher rent (this is the scenario you had in mind, I presume) is allowed to rent the house.
2. NB is given if the rent loss is not very high.
3. B is given if the owner feels this is the correct thing to do.

Anyway this will not prove anything. You just said NB. Now I will put the question back to you with the assumption that a B who drinks and a vegetarian "paṟaiyaṉ" approach the B landlord for the house; what do you think will happen?

"I will recommend one test - tell a TB to invite a learned NB scholar in sanskrit, vedas, etc., and is clean, of good nature
and all, as a "brahmanan" to partake of the pitrubhojanam in sraaddham, and see for yourself whether it will be accepted;
on the contrary, you suggest an ugly, uncouth, illiterate "born-brahmin" who does not even know to pronounce ததாஸ்து
properly, and it will be accepted, particularly if the "dakshinai" to be given is lower!!"

Is it true what you say? When I went to Sri Rangam temple with my mother I saw from a distance a white man, clearly
with a thread across his torso. Was I hallucinating? No. This was undoubtedly a white (ie. European-like) man, considered
a brahmin by the temple. I took a video of him, I don't know if was disturbed by that, but he just continued with his
reading (of the Vishnu shashranamam I think). I found he did have a small European/American-like accent! My guess was that this man (quite old, clearly 50+) took interest in studying these things and came to become a preist here. I didn't want to disturb while he was reading so I waited (I waited near him, while my mom did the "pradakshinams" etc).

I would have asked him details of his life and how he came to be there, but unfortunately it was time to leave. As I was exiting the temple I spoke to one of the preists there as to how a white man got initiated as a preist. He told me that he proved to know the vedas, shastras etc
and knows Tamil, Malayalam, Sanskrit and Kannada etc. This is true, anyone can verify by visiting this temple.

Regards,
Vivek.

This does not answer my query. If you are to answer without side-tracking, you should have enquired from the local priest whether the 'white man' is invited as a 'brahmanan' for tevasam by the local brahmins. I have already said in my post that access to books, CDs/DVDs etc., is now available to every one and so we need not consider that white man reading vishnu sahasranamam as something unusual. Most probably he would have been one of the iskcon devotee/acarya. These people are given poonal (I don't know if any ceremony is held for that) and know much about our scriptures, both from the Gaudiya pov and other povs as well. A reading of some of their discussion sites will reveal that.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Isckon does perform Upanayanam.

This man has nicely explained the diff b/w 2 types of brahmins: YouTube - How to put tilak, Part-1.1

Here's one video on Tilaka and achamanam YouTube - Tilaka and Acamana

This is a sweet pic: South India Pilgrimage 2010: Tirupati | The Vaishnava Voice

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Isckon does perform Upanayanam.

This man has nicely explained the diff b/w 2 types of brahmins: YouTube - How to put tilak, Part-1.1

Here's one video on Tilaka and achamanam YouTube - Tilaka and Acamana

This is a sweet pic: South India Pilgrimage 2010: Tirupati | The Vaishnava Voice

Thank you HH. They (iskconites) seem to be not insisting on a pure "gaudiya" upanayanam, perhaps.

 

[Nara]

Most probably he would have been one of the iskcon devotee/acarya. These people are given poonal (I don't know if any ceremony is held for that) and know much about our scriptures, both from the Gaudiya pov and other povs as well. A reading of some of their discussion sites will reveal that.

Dear Sangom sir, Sri Rangam temple does not allow any non-Hindu into the inner praharam of the temple. Who is a non-Hindu is left to the staff guarding the gate. Of course anyone flouting non-Hinduness like wearing a cross, or clearly non-Hindu in appearance such as that of a Muslim will be forbidden entry.

Further, anyone who appears non-Indian, like Caucasians and Africans, are also forbidden, even if they appear in traditional Indian clothing and marking, such as Kaccham, Urdva pundaram, etc. One of my friends, a born and practicing Brahmin SV with very pale skin, was mistaken for a westerner and was refused entry. Only after some pleading and complaining he was permitted in.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom sir, Sri Rangam temple does not allow any non-Hindu into the inner praharam of the temple. Who is a non-Hindu is left to the staff guarding the gate. Of course anyone flouting non-Hinduness like wearing a cross, or clearly non-Hindu in appearance such as that of a Muslim will be forbidden entry.

Further, anyone who appears non-Indian, like Caucasians and Africans, are also forbidden, even if they appear in traditional Indian clothing and marking, such as Kaccham, Urdva pundaram, etc. One of my friends, a born and practicing Brahmin SV with very pale skin, was mistaken for a westerner and was refused entry. Only after some pleading and complaining he was permitted in.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

From what Shri Vivek writes, it appears as if the rules might have been changed now. Otherwise how to explain the "white man" well-versed in our scriptures and many languages? Of course there are very fair-complexioned people in Mangalore area etc., (Madhva brahmins) and he might have been one such.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nara,

From what Shri Vivek writes, it appears as if the rules might have been changed now. Otherwise how to explain the "white man" well-versed in our scriptures and many languages? Of course there are very fair-complexioned people in Mangalore area etc., (Madhva brahmins) and he might have been one such.

Dear Shri Sangom, Even foreign tourists are allowed in the outer praharam of the temple, so it is not surprising that this particular white man was seen in the temple grounds. As you have observed, there are many whites who are well versed in Hindu sthotras. So, he sitting by himself and reciting SV Sahasranamam is also not very surprising.

However, I am quite confident that he will not be allowed to perform (i) any priestly functions, (ii) join a formal recitation of anything (even Vadakalai SV Brahmins are not allowed), and (iii) into the gharbha gruham for dharshan of Ranganatha (this probably could be made to happen with a little lubrication in the form of Gandhi or local establishment power).

Cheers!

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Sangomji - Adi Shankaracharya wouldn't have composed MP if he was biasing people on basis of caste. Other brahmins wouldn't have accepted MP if they thought it was against their philosophy.

"Citing one uttaṃka or one manīṣāpaṃcakaṃ to prove your claim will not suffice because in the same Mahabharata, there is a lot of casteist advices, and for the single instance of manīṣāpaṃcakaṃ, Adi Sankara is supposed to have held the view that "knowledge of brahman springs from inquiry into the words of the Upanishads, and the knowledge of brahman that shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other way.[32] Moreover, Shankara was committed to the caste system.[33] He also believed that the most important access to highest truth was Vedic texts, and that access to these liberating texts should be socially restricted to upper-caste males.[33]"

They are not "one" example - they are central themes of our culture which have been forgotten. What would be the reason to even compose the Manisha Panchakam? Or save it to be propagated? These ideas in wiki, are from sources of authors. Caste system, by itself was a social heirarchy, and such heirarchies exists in every single society in some form or the other. If the claims of these authors was accurate why would Manisha Panchakam have been composed? Your idea is a paradox. What you don't accept is that this is a central theme, which by the human tendency to ill-treat has been forgotten.

The fact is that a text like Manisha Panchakam tells us that Adi Shankaracharya was willing to consider his guru, whoever satisfied certain conditions, no matter where they are from. That is what it meant to spread and teach. Does vedanta speak of different Self pertaining to brahmin, or shudra?

"Incidentally I would like to know the sacred texts - considered older than Ramayana and Mahabharata, because these texts show the type of casteist thinking which I am talking about -, with chapter and other references, based on which you claim the golden era of eclectic brahminism not based on birth was the law here in bharatavarsha."

The Upanishads are considered even older than the epics - tell me where they speak of the Self of different people being different because of caste? They don't. The word brahmin as used in the Buddhist texts was itself the correct redefining of it - in the original sense of the "duty" represented by one. Can the cowardly son of a kshatriya be called a kshatriya? It goes against the original idea of what it means to be one. If varna was defined based on occupation because that is exactly what it was. Brahmins became a community, which is why ideas of lineage came. Today of course, this is the only meaning that is used.

Even the Bhagvad Gita speaks of the castes on basis of individual temperment, not on lineage.

The epics highlight casteist stories, but not espousing them only revealing the sort of evil that exists in society and will continue to exist. Such stories within the epics are reminders evil tendencies - like the story of Uttanga, Nahusha, Yavakrida etc., they are not places to imitate, but learn from their follies.

"This is a hypothetical question. I had given a test. But instead of answering it you have given another. In this case the answer will depend on individual preferences and can be one of the following:
1. Both are considered equal and the one who is willing to pay higher rent (this is the scenario you had in mind, I presume) is allowed to rent the house.
2. NB is given if the rent loss is not very high.
3. B is given if the owner feels this is the correct thing to do."

Honestly, an orthodox family would definitely be uncomfortable with only a meat eater, or drinking person - no amount of high rent will do.

"Now I will put the question back to you with the assumption that a B who drinks and a
vegetarian "paṟaiyaṉ" approach the B landlord for the house; what do you think will happen?"

If the landlord is a bigot he will be reluctant to give it to either, but he would still choose this paraiyar over a drinking brahmin, if he is orthodox.

"This does not answer my query. If you are to answer without side-tracking, you should have enquired from the local priest whether the 'white man' is invited as a 'brahmanan' for tevasam by the local brahmins."

To answer your query is simple - that bigotry does exist in our community. But such a bigotry can hardly be called "brahminism", when our philosophy itself speaks against it. Not in remote "one" instances, but in entire philosophies - the very theme of many stories against arrogant-pride in all humans.

Nara considers the varna system as the core, but there are many philosophies that don't even speak of it - they speak of the Self, of an invidividual - as an individual and extend the idea to all living things.

" I have already said in my post that access to books, CDs/DVDs etc., is now available to every one and so we need not consider that white man reading vishnu sahasranamam as something unusual. Most probably he would have been one of the iskcon devotee/acarya. These people are given poonal (I don't know if any ceremony is held for that) and know much about our scriptures, both from the Gaudiya pov and other povs as well. A reading of some of their discussion sites will reveal that."

That may have been the case. Anyway, I didn't get the chance to ask. In anycase, the accusation put forth by Nara doesn't consider that organization like ISKCON was itself started by a brahmin - with no pressure or anything. How is it that such an establishment isn't considered "Brahminism"? Why is Manisha Panchakam not integral to "Brahminism" to you?

I consider casteist ill-treatment of lower caste people by the upper castes (including NB upper castes) as against what actually forms the core of our culture. Brahmins were formed to pursue discipline, knowledge - not to be above or below anyone. The fact that our community or society in recent centuries became that way has got to do with pride, arrogance etc - common to any high status community anywhere. Nowhere does it become the "core" of our culture that it needs to be called "brahminism".

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Nara]

... Shankara was committed to the caste system......

Further he is held by Nambootiris to have authored the "Saankara Smriti" which is casteist to the worst.

Shri Sangom, as you know very well, there can be nothing more religiously philosophical and sacred than the commentaries great Acharyas wrote of Brhmma Sutras. Consider the following passages from Sankara and Ramanuja's Bhashyas.

Sankara 1.3.38: Click here for more.

The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra.'

From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.'
​

Ramanuja 1.3.38 and 39: Click here for more.

.... The Sûdra is specially forbidden to hear and study the Veda and to perform the things enjoined in it. 'For a Sûdra is like a cemetery, therefore the Veda must not be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra;' 'Therefore the Sûdra is like a beast, unfit for sacrifices.' And he who does not hear the Veda recited cannot learn it so as to understand and perform what the Veda enjoins. The prohibition of hearing thus implies the prohibition of understanding and whatever depends on it.

Smriti also declares this prohibition of hearing, and so on. 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with molten lead and lac; if he pronounces it his tongue is to be slit; if he preserves it his body is to be cut through.' And 'He is not to teach him sacred duties or vows.'--It is thus a settled matter that the Sûdras are not qualified for meditations on Brahman.
​

In spite of the above, Ramanuja also makes a case that Sûdras are also qualified for the knowledge of Brahman, in the same paragraph. This, and other biographical details claimed, albeit from haigeographical accounts, are perhaps the reasons why he is considered a reformer.

Cheers!

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Nara (1) - So are you telling that Ramanuja's ideas contradict themselves?

"In spite of the above, Ramanuja also makes a case that Sûdras are also qualified for the knowledge of Brahman, in the same paragraph. This, and other biographical details claimed, albeit from haigeographical accounts, are perhaps the reasons why he is considered a reformer."

In both the comments you quoted what does "Sudra" mean exactly? Are they speaking of a bloodline of people, or the temperament? In any case, its widely regarded that the Smritis aren't as important as the Shrutis.

If (suppose) these comments of say Ramanuja or Sankara create contradictions, it only means we have to look deeper to see if we are missing something. Or otherwise, we ourselves are left to choose in our personal sentiment, which of the statements we consider valid.

"there can be nothing more religiously philosophical and sacred than the commentaries great Acharyas wrote of Brhmma Sutras.""

If one statement of these "acharyas" contradicts the others, which would you consider valid? Would you care to investigate what it meant, before concluding?

As a brahmin-hater you would consider the worse as valid. But you forget that a true philosophical challenge can be put forth to orthodox people, for caste ill-treatment from works of the Upanishads or text like Manisha Panchakam.

Now Ramanuja-the-revolutionary is not following "brahminism" according to you because he is doing good. If he was doing evil, or any NB was also doing evil - you will call it "brahminism"". You are left to explain this to me and the forum.

Regards,
Vivek

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Nara (2) - Keep guilt to yourself and explain why you call caste ill-treatment as essentially "brahminism" without reading up.

Ambedkar in his personal experience was treated badly by people of many castes. But it was his brahmin teacher who held him as favorite, whose name was Ambedkar. Today, TN has so many caste practices in villages even after brahmins are exiled. For you claiming about "Brahminism" how will you explain this? You can look at this in a skewed manner and feel apologetic by being an "ex-brahmin", but you hardly have an understanding which is why you fail to answer my questions.

Other countries don't have brahmins, but they have social inequality. The nature pertains to societies - not to brahmins, it pertains to all previlaged classes in India or any place. So you are not seeing this right in all your feeling of guilt. You are then trying to spread this feeling of guilt as necessary to the rest of the community saying we need to throw away a rice bag with 50 percent worms.

Further, how is it that neither you, nor Happyhindu speak of the DK/DMK's exiling of brahmins as a crime? It was the same thing as done to Jews in Nazi Germany or like Pogrom in other places. Explain your reasons to me and the forum.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Split Brahmins

The discussions are pathetic. I would suggest the owners of the site to rename it as thinnaipechchukarar kuzhu. Why cannot we be brahmins just as we are at home and just be like any other human outside our home. I do not know of any law which prohibits that. We are all individuals and Brahminism is for the emancipation of the self. It is time we realized the inside is different from the outside. Same is the case with all groups. :heh:

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Iyyarooraan


"Why cannot we be brahmins just as we are at home and just be like any other human outside our home. I do not know of any law which prohibits that."

No law prohibits it. For that matter not many who are in the brahmin community behave as brahmins inside their houses either - times have changed, and so has the way we live. So brahmins today, say those who live in cities, have a mix of some early traditions and some influences of the present. Its necessary that we are influenced by present trends of thinking because we did stagnate in the past, which is why civilizations like those in Europe and other places went ahead. And definitely, we ourselves should try to influence the world too. This commerce of ideas is essential to any growing society or civilization.

I would consider these as issues:

1. How should we look at our past literarture, philosophy etc?

Generally I see three ways any past tradition is viewed, which would be appropriate:

A. Should we look at it with sense of neglect? "These are all of bygone things, we shouldn't care of it all nowadays".

B. Should we look at it as zealots and fanatics? "This is only correct, we should keep following it no matter what, or no matter how people think, or no matter how they feel".

C. Or should we look at it with a sense of trying to investigate and understand, feeling free to redefine and challenge it? "What was older society like?", "What sort of biases existed in indian society and why?", "Does it still exist today in another form, if so how can we move to changing it?"

2. How do we recoincile with the heavy anti-brahmin sentiment that exists in politics? Is the brahmin community the one to take large part of the blame for some historical setup of society? If so, how do we as individuals in the community recoincile with that? Would it essentially require us to give up our identity (like Nara has)?

3. What does it mean to be brahmin today? Should we as a community even have and define a goal/agenda that proves itself positive to the society we live in?

These are some serious questions, I feel we need to think about.

Regards,
Vivek.