Reservation for Brahmins

[Harini]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sorry sir if I have offended you in any way. My tirade was only against the lapses in the curriculum that prevents one to know their heritage. Our Heritage is that all the communities lived together for ages and so you cannot be different now. It happened by proper understanding of the others and respecting their tradition. There is nothing as discrimination in any of our tradition and that spirit is still there in our Constitution. The British divided us to rule s. Most of us got carried away by the way they educated us of our own tradition. It is important to note that they referred all of us as Hindus without taking our consent from any of us. They referred Adi Sankara and Sri Ramanuja as Hindu spiritual leaders when they themselves were not aware of the terminologies like 'Hinduism' , 'Dalith' etc.

Firstly, I am not educated. Secondly, I don't see any difference between a Harijan or a caste brahmin or any other human being; I see everyone with the same respect. Thirdly, I try to help everyone within my capacity; I don't discriminate. I helped in the past; hopefully, I may be able to do so in the future too. I try to build a bridge, never carve a divide amoung people.

There is no dispute on Shanmadham. But eventually it integrated only Brahmins as 'Smarthas'. However Adi Sankara life history will tell that he had respect for all the followings like the 'Devatha Upasana'. He tried to persuade people to see various devathas as different form of the same God just for the sake of integration did not materialized practically. Adi Sankara or Sri Ramanuja cannot be blamed for their failed experiments. I appreciate them only for their holy intentions.
Again your article is good. The only error is the usage of the term 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' without giving any historical perspective to it. Hinduism is not ancient. We only call everything ancient in the subcontinent by a collective term of 'Hinduism'

Sow.Harini, like I said before, I am not learned. The information about 72 faiths, Shan Matham etc, I collected from 'Dheivathin Kural' - Book #1. There were many 'village specific Devatha Upasana' prior to the formation of Hinduism. Even today some of the deities are worshipped (like Kaatteri, Ellai Amman, Saptha Kanyas....) in the villages. But, one can not deny Shiva worship. Siva was worshipped by ancient Indians. Kindly read this article.

I have not given any false credit to British or Adi Sankara. I firmly believe our society as integrating society and only we can have such a forward thinking Constitution.
Again I have not mentioned 'Harijans' as non believers. The one we choose to call Harijans certainly would have had their forefathers worshiping Shiva or Vishnu and also Nature Gods. Even a micro account of Brahmins will reveal that they evolved as different groups by different period of time. Each evolved without interfering in other's faith (I called it as non believer in other faith). Your Christian friend at Thirumala certainly will not be offending others at the temple by his dual belief. Or society allowed him to do experiment and he also know well the ethical considerations in his experiment. Lord Iyappa at Sabarimala promotes large scale experimentation

Kindly read 'Dheivathin Kural', please. Shan Matham was Sri.Adi Sankara's effort. Kindly don't give it to the British, please. Do you really believe the above quoted message? Restriction is discrimination. I don't know why you are not seeing it. Kindly don't call Harijans as 'non-believers'. I do not know about you, but I am not qualified to judge one's belief or the lack of it. If you are qualified, kindly let me know how you are coming to this conclusion. (By the way, about Christians....One of my friend's elder brother watched us, youngsters making regular trips to Tirumala. He got curious, visited with his wife and Children; fell in love with it, started yearly pilgrimage to Tirumala with his family. His father was furious with me. By the way, my friend is a staunch Christian. So, I don't know about faith and belief).

Cheers!

Sir Daliths may or may not have identified themselves with Ayyanars. But to tell that Hinduism today is attempting to hide facts is wrong. To say Hinduism discriminate is wrong. Such notions come from the British education that we had on our tradition. Unfortunately still we are being prevented from having the education of right type needed for us.

Restricting others and gaining space for us to enjoy our Constitutional right is permitted. Discrimination is evil and it cannot be permitted. In our tradition we had 'Thinnai' for all the passer-bye to relax at every house. At the same restricting only the identified person to Bed room or Puja room is an identified necessity. Forceful entry is not the method of civilized society. However anyone can gain entry through heart and building right belief and trust. It can be to bed room and Puja room as well.

Those discriminated will alienate themselves in our society. Even the Brahmins who migrate to USA alienated themselves from the community. But they always get accommodated when they return after proper realization. Therefore even Brahmins are victims of discrimination happening as aberration in our society. But to say that Hinduism prevented Brahmins from being a ruler and thus perpetuated misery is wrong. It is only the Brahmins who chose not to rule! It is only the Brahmins who chose not to ask for Reservation. The Constitution of India cannot prevent them from having it if they chose to ask!

I don't think Dalits are involved in Iyanaar Poojas. In North Arcot Dist, Harijans mostly conduct poojas for Maari amman, Chelli Amman, Sivan (as a Linga form), Krsna and Venkatachalapathy. I knew many of them followed Purattaasi (புரட்டாசி) Saturdays fasting or at least restriction in eating. If you were restricted as a woman, so would be the restrictions for the women belonging to their women too. (But, I never heard about restriction for women. I know about restrictions for men in certain poojas....).



'Period' is not my mindset. I have seen too many caste based restrictions at various levels. Right...let's look at this closely, please. Only caste Brahmins are allowed in Sactum sanctorum; Other high castes like chettiars are allowed at the next level; bit lower castes stayed at the 'praharam' level; some castes can go only up to the 'flag post' (துவஜஸ்தம்பம்). Have you noticed some persons conducting pooja at the 'flag post' level? well, that's how far they were allowed. I know I can't enter inside the temple, I know I can't see the idol at close quarters, I know I have to ask my children not to enter further than the 'flag post', if I still make a pilgrimage to that temple, how would you judge about my belief and faith?



Sow.Harini, I never suspect of you villifying anyone. Harijans were alienated for a long time. It is not a bad idea for others to go forward to invite the Harijans to take part in all our activities. You must have observed, when Harijans declare a mass conversion, they eventually convert to Budhhism, which is an off-shoot of Hinduism. Why do you think they attempt to malign Hiduism's secular image?

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

Constitution of India is not about punishments. Untouchability is a crime against humanity and how can any Constitution guarantee it? Why a shudra cannot be proud of being a shudra just as I am proud as a Brahmin?

Sir,

Have you read the dharmashastras? How can a 'shudra' be proud to be a shudra?

And when it comes to being a brahmin, that too can be debated on historical and scriptural grounds, about who is a brahmin..

I was reading "Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Volume 35". In that, i came across the example of Maturas, who were a group of tribal sorcerers. The book noted an inscription and puts forth details abt the Maturas. Apparently the Maturas gradually gave up some of their tribal customs, and adopted those of the brahmanical society.

Also from another book, i found that being shamanistic in origin, the Maturas (literally mata (magic / sorcery) + uru (village) in kannada meaning village sorcerers) opted to be called brahmins (Nandi 1987). They began using the term “vamsa” for a family and adopted Saivism. Apparently the use of the term “deva” in the name of their chief, Vanavase Chattaye Deva (aka banavasi chattayya), also shows indicates their acculturation process.

Later these folks (matturas) have claimed to be both, brahmins and kshatriyas. So, apparently there was no system in place that prevented shamans and village sorcerors from learning vedas and converting into brahmins.

In another book, "Essays in Indian art, religion, and society", by Krishna Mohan Shrimali, i was going thru the origins of the Matsyas (Matysa kingdom). There is a record on them by one Kubja Vishnuvardhana and this record refers to the Matsyas as brahmanas. However, at this point no qualifications characteristic of brahmanas were mentioned (not even gotra was mentioned). This, apart from other reasons, have led historians to beleive that the Matsyas were actually non-brahmanical in origin.

Is there any guarantee that those who are claiming to belong to a particular caste / varna, in the present times, have not had a different origin in the past? (and ofcourse this not only applies to brahmins, but to all other castes as well).

Also, on coming to power, is there a guarantee that men were not converted from non-brahmins into kshatriyas / brahmins?

So on what basis can one say he is proud to belong to a particular caste in the present times ?

May i know what is this source of "pride" which serves nothing apart from personal ego (and yes, when i say ego, it does not mean the other side alone - i am referring to myself also..as i have acquired personal ego in bountiful measures over the past year).

Discrimination is different from differentiation. The same people who portrayed differentiation as discrimination are now crying for caste based census! I am different and I have right under the Constitution to be different.

Amidst our heated argument I feel both of us arguing for the same without understanding each other.

Am against caste based census and rigid categorization. But think about SCs and STs. So many ppl are getting fake caste (SC/ ST) certificates and depriving the real ones from their rights.

Hopefully, atleast the census will help to weed out ppl makin fraudulent claims; and hopfully it will help the centre to decide how much budget to allot to the truly downtrodden for their upliftment.

But, if politicians exploit this scenario also ( for caste votes, etc), then even God cannot save the country.

 

[happyhindu]

There is no dispute on Shanmadham. But eventually it integrated only Brahmins as 'Smarthas'. However Adi Sankara life history will tell that he had respect for all the followings like the 'Devatha Upasana'. He tried to persuade people to see various devathas as different form of the same God just for the sake of integration did not materialized practically. Adi Sankara or Sri Ramanuja cannot be blamed for their failed experiments. I appreciate them only for their holy intentions.

Harini,

Probably you may want to elaborate more on the first 2 lines??

On what basis do you think Shanmadham eventually integrated only Brahmins as Smarthas ??

As for the rest of your para, i do agree with you reg the life history of Sri Adi Shankara (SAS) that He had respect for all. SAS touched the feet of a chandala. Similarly Sri Ramanuja rested his hand on the shoulder of urangavilli dasar.

Yet what these great souls did (to show that untouchability has no spiritual significance whatsoever), made no impact on the masses. And as we know, untouchability remains in existence even today.

Again I have not mentioned 'Harijans' as non believers. The one we choose to call Harijans certainly would have had their forefathers worshiping Shiva or Vishnu and also Nature Gods. Even a micro account of Brahmins will reveal that they evolved as different groups by different period of time. Each evolved without interfering in other's faith (I called it as non believer in other faith).

Why do you think each evolved without interefering in each others' faith ?

Restricting others and gaining space for us to enjoy our Constitutional right is permitted. Discrimination is evil and it cannot be permitted. In our tradition we had 'Thinnai' for all the passer-bye to relax at every house. At the same restricting only the identified person to Bed room or Puja room is an identified necessity. Forceful entry is not the method of civilized society. However anyone can gain entry through heart and building right belief and trust. It can be to bed room and Puja room as well.

Sorry, restricting temple entry on the grounds of caste is discrimination and it is a punishable offence in the eyes of the law. The constitution does not permit discrimination on the grounds of caste. It is pointless to compare public space (temples) with private space (own house).

Those discriminated will alienate themselves in our society. Even the Brahmins who migrate to USA alienated themselves from the community. But they always get accommodated when they return after proper realization. Therefore even Brahmins are victims of discrimination happening as aberration in our society. But to say that Hinduism prevented Brahmins from being a ruler and thus perpetuated misery is wrong. It is only the Brahmins who chose not to rule! It is only the Brahmins who chose not to ask for Reservation. The Constitution of India cannot prevent them from having it if they chose to ask!

Am not sure on what basis you say brahmins chose not to rule. I think irespective of caste, everyone who got a chance to rule, did rule.

Regards.

 

[Harini]

1. It happened only that way. Only Smartha Brahmins found Shanmadham a convenient choice gaining them wider acceptability. They are the only people still talking about Adi Sankara for their faith.

2. No. There are some people who are trying to invent untouchability out of nothing. Media is also behind them. But violence in various forms are there everywhere.

3. Religious leaders are scholars and they never behaved as leaders of political parties. Most of the problem today is because of the political leaders misusing religious sentiments for their caste count politics.

4. The law that you are talking has not punished the Hindu Religious Endowment Officer of any temple in Tamilnadu for restricting only Archakas (I am not sing the term Brahmin here. I am a Brahmin and I am also find myself restricted) in to Sanctum Sanctorium of the temples. One cannot expect everything in absolute sense. If our Constitution guarantees 'Equality', it cannot make a women a man. All these things are possible only within acceptable social limits. If the society feels restricting Foreigner loitering with a camera in to prayer area of the temple as needed, then it cannot be considered as discrimination. If a State in US did not find itself comfortable with its companies outsourcing the jobs to Asia, they will not accept it as a discrimination.

To the media, if a political leader is killed then it is terrorist act. If a public is targetted and killed it is naxalite act. If Stein is burned or mosque is demolished it is religious fundamentalism. So all that comes to your mind for discrimination is a form of violence committed by one caste on the Daliths. The Tamilnadu Government itself is blamed now for discrimination against Mr.Umashankar IAS by the media.

5. The Nehru family is a Brahmin family and they continue to rule India. Please don't put words in to my mouth. Check the context of my utterances before jumping your guns.

1. On what basis do you think Shanmadham eventually integrated only Brahmins as Smarthas ??

2. Untouchability remains in existence even today.

3.Why do you think each evolved without interefering in each others' faith ?

4. restricting temple entry on the grounds of caste is discrimination and it is a punishable offence in the eyes of the law.

5. Am not sure on what basis you say brahmins chose not to rule. I think irespective of caste, everyone who got a chance to rule, did rule.

Regards.

 

[sangom]

This is a nice link you had given http://www.hinduwebsite.com/siva/ancientforms.asp

Some also say that since the word Shiva is not found in Vedas, therefore Shiva is a pre-vedic and a non-vedic deity (debatable though). Interestingly Shiva worship was present in the IVC regions..

Also, Indra was confirming duties of mlecchas, robbers and dasyus in Mahabharat, because possibly at that time Indra was still king of gods (neither Shiva nor Vishnu was king of gods during the vedic period)...apparently during mahabharat, puranic (popular present day) gods (and their worship) were not yet created..

HH,

It is not correct to say that "the word Shiva is not found in Vedas" because it is the rudra prasna of Yajur Veda which first says "namaH SivAya ca" in extolling rudra, thus confirming the identity of the rigvedic Rudra with the later Siva concept.

During M. Bh. days I think one will find both the old vedic, ritual-based (poorva mimamsic) religion as also the worship of a few deities, Vishnu being the classical example as depicted by the Vishnu Sahasranaamam.

 

[sangom]

1. It happened only that way. Only Smartha Brahmins found Shanmadham a convenient choice gaining them wider acceptability. They are the only people still talking about Adi Sankara for their faith.

When Adi Sankara gave shape to shanmatam, the brahmins who opted for his view were all later called "Smartas" but we should also bear in mind that Ramanuja came into the scene about 400 years later and then a part of the then smarta brahmins embraced Sri Vaishnavism. Similarly there might have been more smartas who later on joined the Dvaita group, the Nimbarka group, the Vallabha group, the Chaitanya group, etc. Those who still stick with advaita are smartas. In Bengal and Nepal etc., besides Sankara's shanmatam, the extreme tantrism (from out of which Sankara tried to create Saaktam, Gaanaapatyam, Saivam, etc.,) continued. Such adherents cannot be called smartas,IMO.

5. The Nehru family is a Brahmin family and they continue to rule India. Please don't put words in to my mouth. Check the context of my utterances before jumping your guns.

Pushyamitra Sunga (Sung) who is reported to be a samavedi brahmin, assassinated the last Maurya king, ascended the throne and ruled with an iron hand and historians claim the it was during his rule that Buddhism was exterminated in the entire Mauryan empire, then. Later we have the Kaanvas, a brahmin dynasty, ruling the Andhra/Bengal area. Hence we do have a history of "brahmins" ruling some parts of the country.

 

[RKB]

I think i have been sufficiently been informed about Dharmashastras. Shudras of today have achieved significantly in various fields and so they have all the reason to be proud about themselves. May be Brahmins alone have some problem in finding pride nowadays. They have significantly lost their power and position and also are deteriorating as a community.

Brahmins do have questionable lineage in some pockets. But majority have a clear linage.

Source of pride is definitely ego.

Sir,

Have you read the dharmashastras? How can a 'shudra' be proud to be a shudra?

Also, on coming to power, is there a guarantee that men were not converted from non-brahmins into kshatriyas / brahmins?

So on what basis can one say he is proud to belong to a particular caste in the present times ?

May i know what is this source of "pride" which serves nothing apart from personal ego (and yes, when i say ego, it does not mean the other side alone - i am referring to myself also..as i have acquired personal ego in bountiful measures over the past year).

 

[happyhindu]

1. It happened only that way. Only Smartha Brahmins found Shanmadham a convenient choice gaining them wider acceptability. They are the only people still talking about Adi Sankara for their faith.

On what basis do you say Smartha brahmins founded Shanmadham?

Nope, Smartha brahmins are not the only people "still talking about" Sri Adi Shankara (SAS). SAS took sanyasam under a particular order of the ekadandis. After sanyasam, He tried to bring various ekadandi sampradayams into the affiliation of Shankara mutts, but apparently did not really succeed much -- so till date there are many ekadandi sampradayas that exist independently (and not under the control of Shankara mutts).

2. No. There are some people who are trying to invent untouchability out of nothing. Media is also behind them. But violence in various forms are there everywhere.

Untouchability exists in the dharmashastras.

3. Religious leaders are scholars and they never behaved as leaders of political parties. Most of the problem today is because of the political leaders misusing religious sentiments for their caste count politics.

Nobody is comparing religious leaders with politicans. And there is no point blaming the politicians for everything. What religious leaders say, affects all hindus. And ppl will naturally try to utilize political venues to address their grieviences.

4. The law that you are talking has not punished the Hindu Religious Endowment Officer of any temple in Tamilnadu for restricting only Archakas (I am not sing the term Brahmin here. I am a Brahmin and I am also find myself restricted) in to Sanctum Sanctorium of the temples. One cannot expect everything in absolute sense. If our Constitution guarantees 'Equality', it cannot make a women a man. All these things are possible only within acceptable social limits. If the society feels restricting Foreigner loitering with a camera in to prayer area of the temple as needed, then it cannot be considered as discrimination. If a State in US did not find itself comfortable with its companies outsourcing the jobs to Asia, they will not accept it as a discrimination.

There is no need to compare with animals / birds / converting man to women and things "set by nature" with caste (which is a man-made system).

And everyone knows what is discrimination. Public is not a fool. So its pointless to compare caste with foreigners and incidental anecdotal stuff either.

To the media, if a political leader is killed then it is terrorist act. If a public is targetted and killed it is naxalite act. If Stein is burned or mosque is demolished it is religious fundamentalism. So all that comes to your mind for discrimination is a form of violence committed by one caste on the Daliths. The Tamilnadu Government itself is blamed now for discrimination against Mr.Umashankar IAS by the media.

5. The Nehru family is a Brahmin family and they continue to rule India. Please don't put words in to my mouth. Check the context of my utterances before jumping your guns.

You are entitled to your opinions. And again, people are not fools to accept things as they are without using their mind. So everyone knows what is caste-discrimination and what is not. Which is why, we have come atleast this far under an independent India.

 

[happyhindu]

HH,

It is not correct to say that "the word Shiva is not found in Vedas" because it is the rudra prasna of Yajur Veda which first says "namaH SivAya ca" in extolling rudra, thus confirming the identity of the rigvedic Rudra with the later Siva concept.

During M. Bh. days I think one will find both the old vedic, ritual-based (poorva mimamsic) religion as also the worship of a few deities, Vishnu being the classical example as depicted by the Vishnu Sahasranaamam.

Dear sir,

Me too had this doubt, how come in rudram, chamakam the word Shiva is used (like Shiva sharavyaya tava..., then Shivena vachasa tva... and namah Shivaya cha Shivataraya cha, etc)...

The explanation given was that since Shiva is not found in the earliest of vedas, which is Rigved, therefore Shiva was not originally a vedic god.

But Shiva worship had actually existed from pre-vedic period (and widely spread across various regions).

Therefore, the emergence of Shiva in Yajur signifies an assimilation process; in which Shiva was absorbed into the Vedic stream (dunno if this wud indicate integration b/w the vedic people and pre-vedic ppl) -- i wud love to hear your inputs on this.

Some also say that Trishiras / Vritra killed by Indra was actually Shiva. I was reading a book by Devdutt Patniak called "Shiva to Shankara: decoding the phallic symbol". And this one is also interesting: A social history of India - Google Books

Perhaps in MBh poorvamimansa ritualism exists bcoz it is said all brahmanas were written in the kuru regions (though the samhitas themselves are older / ancient, apprently orthopraxy was created in the kuru regions)...a good many books actually refer to purvamimansa as "vedic orthopraxy" or "kuru orthopraxy"..

i wud love to hear your inputs on all this sir..

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

I think i have been sufficiently been informed about Dharmashastras. Shudras of today have achieved significantly in various fields and so they have all the reason to be proud about themselves. May be Brahmins alone have some problem in finding pride nowadays. They have significantly lost their power and position and also are deteriorating as a community.

Brahmins do have questionable lineage in some pockets. But majority have a clear linage.

Source of pride is definitely ego.

Dear Shri RKB,

Yet again, you speak exactly like Shri RVR.

Am not sure how much you have been informed about the dharmashastras, but Manu says a man who does not subsist / earn a living thru brahmanical jobs, is to be treated as a non-brahmin.

Plus, if the so-called 'shudras' have prospered today, it is ofcourse not bcoz of dharmashastras or the ones who maintain the dharmashastras. So such reasoning as yours, do not really help in pulling wool over one's eyes, reg pride in shudra-hood.

Instead of talking abt lineage with so much confidence, please contact me over pm, and i will bear the cost of your genetic tests. Am curious what happens if you find that you shared the same parentage with some tribal groups during the 9th to 14th centuries (of which i feel pretty much sure you will) - will your varna change? And ofcourse when i say tribal groups, i also include northern-indian tribals...

Even as such, without taking any of the above into consideration, first please let us know why do you call yourself a brahmin? And on what grounds do you wish to call a particular section of the population as shudras? And wht relevance do yout think does such terminology (of 'brahmins' and 'shudras') have in today's times?

 

[sangom]

Dear sir,

Me too had this doubt, how come in rudram, chamakam the word Shiva is used (like Shiva sharavyaya tava..., then Shivena vachasa tva... and namah Shivaya cha Shivataraya cha, etc)...

The explanation given was that since Shiva is not found in the earliest of vedas, which is Rigved, therefore Shiva was not originally a vedic god.

But Shiva worship had actually existed from pre-vedic period (and widely spread across various regions).

Therefore, the emergence of Shiva in Yajur signifies an assimilation process; in which Shiva was absorbed into the Vedic stream (dunno if this wud indicate integration b/w the vedic people and pre-vedic ppl) -- i wud love to hear your inputs on this.

Dear Happy Hindu,
I tend to think that the term "Vedic God" denotes all the divinities covered by the three original vedas (trayee, as they were referred to) and if we have to refer to only the rigvedic divinities then call them as "rigvedic gods". Just as rudra got merged with Siva (most probably an assimilation of some tribal or then existing deity), Vishnu who was a minor factotum to the rigvedic supremo Indra, grew to conquer the three worlds in three steps later and even in Yajurveda, vishnu undergoes some promotion IMO. By the time of Mahabharata Indra has been demoted to such a low position that it is really a tragic end for Indra in Hinduism!

Siva- and/or phallic worship is a very old form of human mind and it could have very well existed even much before rigveda in some parts of India.

Some also say that Trishiras / Vritra killed by Indra was actually Shiva. I was reading a book by Devdutt Patniak called "Shiva to Shankara: decoding the phallic symbol". And this one is also interesting: A social history of India - Google Books

Siva has been the subject of ever so many researches and so nothing can be said. Anyway I will go through the book and let you know.

Perhaps in MBh poorvamimansa ritualism exists bcoz it is said all brahmanas were written in the kuru regions (though the samhitas themselves are older / ancient, apprently orthopraxy was created in the kuru regions)...a good many books actually refer to purvamimansa as "vedic orthopraxy" or "kuru orthopraxy"..

i wud love to hear your inputs on all this sir..

Regards.

I have also read that the "madhyadesa" and more specifically the Ganga-Yamuna Doab which is identified as the Kuru country was the home of even the later books of the rigveda (Book X.75.5. containing the famous "imam me gange yamune sarasvati..." rik.

 

[Harini]

Sir, it is the Shanmadham that founded Smarthas as per my post. Your case on ekadandis has no issues with my POV.
By your defenition of Untouchability, it existed in Dharmasasthram and it exist even today. By my definition, it did not existed except as aberrations caused by spurts of violences. Now you yourself agree that restrictions that followed now in temples will not qualify for Untouchability. Then do you mean a Doctor wearing gloves and other paraphernalia to protect himself from being touched by infection is practicing Untouchability? Even today you are not going to shake hands and embrace a 'NeelMetal Fanalca' employee in full uniform. Though I question the very definition of 'discrimination' that has been spread in the public perception, my POV is worth noting. Only my practical definition of 'Untouchability' can be guaranteed by our Constitution and not the idealistic one in the public mind.

On what basis do you say Smartha brahmins founded Shanmadham?

Nope, Smartha brahmins are not the only people "still talking about" Sri Adi Shankara (SAS). SAS took sanyasam under a particular order of the ekadandis. After sanyasam, He tried to bring various ekadandi sampradayams into the affiliation of Shankara mutts, but apparently did not really succeed much -- so till date there are many ekadandi sampradayas that exist independently (and not under the control of Shankara mutts).

Untouchability exists in the dharmashastras.

Nobody is comparing religious leaders with politicans. And there is no point blaming the politicians for everything. What religious leaders say, affects all hindus. And ppl will naturally try to utilize political venues to address their grieviences.

There is no need to compare with animals / birds / converting man to women and things "set by nature" with caste (which is a man-made system).

And everyone knows what is discrimination. Public is not a fool. So its pointless to compare caste with foreigners and incidental anecdotal stuff either.

You are entitled to your opinions. And again, people are not fools to accept things as they are without using their mind. So everyone knows what is caste-discrimination and what is not. Which is why, we have come atleast this far under an independent India.

 

[raja_666]

Hi Every1,
I am a new member just recently joined in, and I have voted yes to the reservation poll. To those who have voted no, my question is why the hell not? We too are as much Indian as those who come under the benefit of reservation.

If we examine the root cause as to why the reservation was created by Dr.Ambedkar, it was to make the Backward classes realize their rights and benefit from a good education. This was the only intention. But the question to be answered is
have those people really benefitted? The answer, as most of us are well aware, is a big NO....!

One of our esteemed friends posted "if affluent Brahmins support the struggling ones (and others too) in way of spreading edcuation and skills (Which is our duty as per Shastras), then it would be possible to sustain our living."
My friend, without trying to sound too harsh, why should we just sustain? Why should we just exist? Why should we need to depend on
alms from affluent members of the Brahmin community to even sustain?
Why should we Brahmins not be allowed to LIVE? The fact is that Brahmins today are paying for the sins of some of our forefathers who were too narrowminded and bigoted....who also mis-interpreted the very Shastras our friend quotes.
But my question here is why should I pay for their sins?

The very same friend, in the same post has said, that reservation should be on an economical basis for the benefit of the whole society. Spoken as a patriot...!!!! I fully support you in that....!!!

But my question is why any reservation for any community at all...and especially in education?

This is where the whole crux lies....!!!

I speak here as an Indian....not just a Brahmin....

Consolidate the education into a single board, rather than multiple boards like CBSE,ICSE,State boards etc.!
Make the mode of instruction in English...!!!! Make the learning of the regional language,Hindi and Sanskrit compulsory...!!!
Make education till Plus Two compulsory for everyone....!!!!

Make all entrance exams as open competition...!!! Then we will have the cream of Indians working in every field.....!!!

It would also help in resolving the "Brain Drain" problem...because the brain drain occurs since there is no respect for the intelligent or the hardworking person due to the evil
of reservation!!!

For a first post...if it is too long...then apologies seniors.....!!!!!

With Respects,
Sriraman

 

[raja_666]

Hi All,

While I am a newbie, I find from the last few posts that the argument on this thread has surprisingly completely veered off course.....
from the question of whether or not we need to fight for reservation, it has gone into a discussion of who or what is a Brahmin is and
whether or not one should be proud of being a shudra.....

With all due respect, ladies and gentlemen, I thought that would need to be a separate thread right?

Captains and navigators, shall we please get back on course?

With Respects,
Sriraman

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Harini,

Am not clear which pick you want to take. You are now saying that Shanmadham founded Smarthas. Can you please elaborate on how did that happen?

Sir, it is the Shanmadham that founded Smarthas as per my post. Your case on ekadandis has no issues with my POV.

1. It happened only that way. Only Smartha Brahmins found Shanmadham a convenient choice gaining them wider acceptability. They are the only people still talking about Adi Sankara for their faith.

There is no dispute on Shanmadham. But eventually it integrated only Brahmins as 'Smarthas'.

As for the rest of your post,

By your defenition of Untouchability, it existed in Dharmasasthram and it exist even today. By my definition, it did not existed except as aberrations caused by spurts of violences. Now you yourself agree that restrictions that followed now in temples will not qualify for Untouchability. Then do you mean a Doctor wearing gloves and other paraphernalia to protect himself from being touched by infection is practicing Untouchability? Even today you are not going to shake hands and embrace a 'NeelMetal Fanalca' employee in full uniform. Though I question the very definition of 'discrimination' that has been spread in the public perception, my POV is worth noting. Only my practical definition of 'Untouchability' can be guaranteed by our Constitution and not the idealistic one in the public mind.

Please do not confuse usage of gloves for hygiene reasons, with prevention of education and temple entry to dalits on the grounds of untouchability / caste.

Untouchability for hygiene reasons in the secular world has no spiritual divine ordinance or sanction in the dharmashastras.

If hygiene is what you want, then you will not eat from the hands of a person who dips his sweat-laden hand into a vessel to give you prasad, just because he is a brahmin.

Nor will you bathe in the stinking cooum river by invoking Varuna.

Nor will you drink teertham in certain small temples for fear of water-borne diseases.

Regards.

 

[sangom]

Dear sir,

Me too had this doubt, how come in rudram, chamakam the word Shiva is used (like Shiva sharavyaya tava..., then Shivena vachasa tva... and namah Shivaya cha Shivataraya cha, etc)...

Dear Happy Hindu,

The word "Siva" means - as per Monier Williams' Dictionary - 'in whom all things lie', auspicious, propitious, gracious, favourable, benign, kind, benevolent, friendly, dear, happy, fortunate, happiness,
welfare, liberation, final emancipation, ' The Auspicious one," etc. Hence sivaa Saravyaayaa will mean '(may your) quiver be auspicious (to me); Sivena vacasaa = by auspicious words; namaH sivaaya ca = (I) prostrate before the auspicious one and (ca); sivataraaya ca = the more auspicious one and.

As you will observe in these instances there is no direct reference to a deity named Siva but as the whole rudra prasna is in praise of rudra and since he is often described with the adjective Siva, the name Siva also came to denote the same divinity.

This is just by way of elaboration pl.

 

[sangom]

Hi Every1,
I am a new member just recently joined in, and I have voted yes to the reservation poll. To those who have voted no, my question is why the hell not? We too are as much Indian as those who come under the benefit of reservation.

If we examine the root cause as to why the reservation was created by Dr.Ambedkar, it was to make the Backward classes realize their rights and benefit from a good education. This was the only intention.

Shri Raja,

I would put this statement in a slightly different way, viz., Ambedkar created reservation since he as well as a sizeable number of Dalits realized their plight in the traditional Hindu caste set-up, wanted to assert their rights and be compensated for the centuries of suffering they, as a group, had undergone for no fault of theirs except birth in certain households.

But the question to be answered is have those people really benefitted? The answer, as most of us are well aware, is a big NO....!

I do not agree ; the reservation system has benefitted the targetted groups to some extent but since their number is so large and the resources at the govt. level are limited we have to be patient and give more time.

Why should we Brahmins not be allowed to LIVE? The fact is that Brahmins today are paying for the sins of some of our forefathers who were too narrowminded and bigoted....who also mis-interpreted the very Shastras our friend quotes. But my question here is why should I pay for their sins?

Don't you enjoy the trickle-down benefits of the actions of your forefathers? Is it that you are just an unattached entity? Won't you perform "sraaddham", "tarpanam", etc., for your forefathers when the time comes? Does not/did not your father, grandfather, greatgrandfather, etc., do the same thing, establish their indebtedness to their ancestors? Is it not prescribed by our Dharmasastras that the son (putra) by performing his duties as per the smritis, will (have to) save his father/mother from falling into the hell called "put" (புத் எனும் நரகம்)?

So, there is no escape from owning up responsibility for the sins committed by one's ancestors. This argument of yours is a very clever one; in simple terms it means, "heads I win, tails you lose" or, as the saying among our ladies goes, "சீதே நீ சீடை கொண்டுவா, நான் கல்லுக்கொண்டு வறேன், நீ தட்டு, நான் திங்கறேன்", in both of which the party making the statement has nothing to lose ever, but only to gain!!

This is where the whole crux lies....!!!

I speak here as an Indian....not just a Brahmin....

I also say, "this is where the crux lies, you are as much a brahmin as you are an Indian"; perhaps you will change your nationality but you cannot alter your caste status.

 

[Harini]

When you are not ready to accept that it simply happened that way, any explanation cannot help. If you had read 'My experiment with truth' you will realize as to how Mahathma Gandhi himself disliked Brahmins at instances as Untouchables. Brahmins also did not had means to sophisticated living and therefore they understood the Daliths better then the others. There are instances when Brahmins have been punished by Kings for Flowers and Prasad offered at the temple were found tainted. Mahathma Gandhi confessed that his first Brahmin cook as illiterate. How then people say that only Daliths were deprived of education.

Sense of hygiene is the only cause of Untochability historically. The films like 'Titanic' will give an account of how such things existed even in West. Mahathma Gandhi himself was thrown ot of train in South Africa for his color. Aristocracy always exaggerated their sense of hygiene and thus indulged in excesses. But the fact that they understood as hygiene makes them clean for any charge. Brahmins were expected to display highest level of hygiene beyond their means for carrying out their function at Temples.

Instead of dragging this thread, come out as to what is your reservation in Brahmins demanding Reservation. As Rajaa says it, you can learn on the matter that you want to know from different channels. Also I feel that you are all more informed than I but only suffer from wrong reasoning.

Dear Harini,

Am not clear which pick you want to take. You are now saying that Shanmadham founded Smarthas. Can you please elaborate on how did that happen?
As for the rest of your post,
Please do not confuse usage of gloves for hygiene reasons, with prevention of education and temple entry to dalits on the grounds of untouchability / caste.

Untouchability for hygiene reasons in the secular world has no spiritual divine ordinance or sanction in the dharmashastras.

If hygiene is what you want, then you will not eat from the hands of a person who dips his sweat-laden hand into a vessel to give you prasad, just because he is a brahmin.

Nor will you bathe in the stinking cooum river by invoking Varuna.

Nor will you drink teertham in certain small temples for fear of water-borne diseases.

Regards.

 

[Harini]

Hello Mr.Raja,

You have to understand that you can be no different from your forefathers. If your heart moved for a underprivileged, so must have been that of most of your ancestors. They feared sin and so they could not have committed any sin.

Unfortunately your ancestors are also are ignorant of what is being done to them by a well orchestrated propaganda. Therefore they atoned for the sins the community committed at temples and thus took the blame.

Reservation was introduced not for offering any education to the underprivileged. It is simply a vote bank politics. The Kshatriyas and Vysyas disliked education for the discipline in School meant slavery to them. Brahmins and Daliths were not often in a position to afford for good education. But almost all Indians learned sufficiently at home to conduct their businesses without hitch. The Britishers tried to convert all of us saying that our Hindu way of life discriminates each other. They succeeded partially. Today there are Daliths who have converted themselves and still live as Hindus. Also there are Brahmins who have refused to be converted but live as Westerner. Like Westerners these Brahmins are keen only in perpetuating the divide to portray themselves high above others. They don't cease to self deprecate and are always talking ill of their ancestors. The need of the hour is a holy effort to bring these people to senses.

Hi Every1,
I am a new member just recently joined in, and I have voted yes to the reservation poll. To those who have voted no, my question is why the hell not? We too are as much Indian as those who come under the benefit of reservation.

If we examine the root cause as to why the reservation was created by Dr.Ambedkar, it was to make the Backward classes realize their rights and benefit from a good education. This was the only intention. But the question to be answered is
have those people really benefitted? The answer, as most of us are well aware, is a big NO....!

One of our esteemed friends posted "if affluent Brahmins support the struggling ones (and others too) in way of spreading edcuation and skills (Which is our duty as per Shastras), then it would be possible to sustain our living."
My friend, without trying to sound too harsh, why should we just sustain? Why should we just exist? Why should we need to depend on
alms from affluent members of the Brahmin community to even sustain?
Why should we Brahmins not be allowed to LIVE? The fact is that Brahmins today are paying for the sins of some of our forefathers who were too narrowminded and bigoted....who also mis-interpreted the very Shastras our friend quotes.
But my question here is why should I pay for their sins?

The very same friend, in the same post has said, that reservation should be on an economical basis for the benefit of the whole society. Spoken as a patriot...!!!! I fully support you in that....!!!

But my question is why any reservation for any community at all...and especially in education?

This is where the whole crux lies....!!!

I speak here as an Indian....not just a Brahmin....

Consolidate the education into a single board, rather than multiple boards like CBSE,ICSE,State boards etc.!
Make the mode of instruction in English...!!!! Make the learning of the regional language,Hindi and Sanskrit compulsory...!!!
Make education till Plus Two compulsory for everyone....!!!!

Make all entrance exams as open competition...!!! Then we will have the cream of Indians working in every field.....!!!

It would also help in resolving the "Brain Drain" problem...because the brain drain occurs since there is no respect for the intelligent or the hardworking person due to the evil
of reservation!!!

For a first post...if it is too long...then apologies seniors.....!!!!!

With Respects,
Sriraman

 

[happyhindu]

When you are not ready to accept that it simply happened that way, any explanation cannot help. If you had read 'My experiment with truth' you will realize as to how Mahathma Gandhi himself disliked Brahmins at instances as Untouchables. Brahmins also did not had means to sophisticated living and therefore they understood the Daliths better then the others. There are instances when Brahmins have been punished by Kings for Flowers and Prasad offered at the temple were found tainted. Mahathma Gandhi confessed that his first Brahmin cook as illiterate. How then people say that only Daliths were deprived of education.

When i was a small kid, i was gifted a copy of the book 'My experiments with Truth'. I was one of the kids who got lucky in school and i have preserved that book safely since then.

You are speaking of brahmins in colonial India. Like Senthil and a few other pseudo-secular ppl, perhaps your view does not want to extend before the colonial period.

Sense of hygiene is the only cause of Untochability historically. The films like 'Titanic' will give an account of how such things existed even in West. Mahathma Gandhi himself was thrown ot of train in South Africa for his color. Aristocracy always exaggerated their sense of hygiene and thus indulged in excesses. But the fact that they understood as hygiene makes them clean for any charge. Brahmins were expected to display highest level of hygiene beyond their means for carrying out their function at Temples.

If hygiene is the only cause of untouchability, then former untouchables who have moved on to other jobs should not be denied education and temple-entries (like what Batuprasad does).

And the orthodoxy shd not wear blinkers (wrt to such dalits) and call upon all hindus to go back to their traditional occupations. It is rather obvious how the dalits wud react if someone were to tell them to go back to the profession of their most recent ancestors.

Am not sure if brahmins were expected to display highest levels of hygiene.

If you read some of the dharma-shastras you will find that bathing with brahmins was like a punishment or remedy for some wrong-doings.

It is rather clear that brahmins wanted to portray their body as something that can cleanse wrong-doings (sins?)....so there was some bias of "body-related greatness"; which the brahmins wanted to project of themselves.

So i do not really buy your argument that sense of hygiene was the only reason for untouchability.

Instead of dragging this thread, come out as to what is your reservation in Brahmins demanding Reservation. As Rajaa says it, you can learn on the matter that you want to know from different channels. Also I feel that you are all more informed than I but only suffer from wrong reasoning.

What reservation do i have? Well i have not even voted in this thread because i did not find the options well constructed. And what reservation can i have? If brahmins want reservations, they can very well go ahead and demand the same. But i feel rather sure that dalits will not allow brahmins to get reservations...

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Thankyou very much sir.

Sir, wud you please tell us more about Shiva as a pre-vedic deity?

Thanks again.

Wrt to the post on theetu, am sorry i did not go thru the full thread and had replied to Shri Nara without realising that you had already replied on the lingayath point.

Regards.

Dear Happy Hindu,

The word "Siva" means - as per Monier Williams' Dictionary - 'in whom all things lie', auspicious, propitious, gracious, favourable, benign, kind, benevolent, friendly, dear, happy, fortunate, happiness,
welfare, liberation, final emancipation, ' The Auspicious one," etc. Hence sivaa Saravyaayaa will mean '(may your) quiver be auspicious (to me); Sivena vacasaa = by auspicious words; namaH sivaaya ca = (I) prostrate before the auspicious one and (ca); sivataraaya ca = the more auspicious one and.

As you will observe in these instances there is no direct reference to a deity named Siva but as the whole rudra prasna is in praise of rudra and since he is often described with the adjective Siva, the name Siva also came to denote the same divinity.

This is just by way of elaboration pl.

 

[kunjuppu]

harini,

not all brahmins from other states are like us.

in gujarat the forward communities are baniyas & jains. the brahmins have not taken to education like us. particularly english language education. they are pretty low on the poverty scale.

not surprisingly, there is no anti brahmin attitude there. even tamil brahmins are welcomed to do clerk jobs at the gujju industries.

 

[Raghy]

Sow.Happy Hindu,

I read Mahabharata story written by a lady about 20 years ago. I don't remember the author's name nor the name of the book. I know, it is not very helpful. That lady (American or English) suggested that Siva worship in the form of phallic symbol was practiced by the Dasyus. She suggested that Siva worship was part of subcontinent culture even before the migration of Aryans in India. All the Asuras worshipped Siva in the phallic form; Devas had a permanent fight with Asuras. These may be points to ponder.

Cheers!

 

[RKB]

Gandhiji has exhibited dislike for Brahmin way of things at many places in his writing. He did not liked the way Brahmins handled Kasi temple, temple at his own place etc. He did not liked Madras Brahmins cooking separately at Calcutta Congress meet. When he talks so much about vegetarianism (that include even giving up milk), why should he show apathy at Brahmins cooking separately for avoiding fishy things of Calcutta.

I have all the regard for Gandhi. But if only the Brahmins at Gujarat are as forward thinking like the Brahmins of Tamilnadu, there is every chance that his dislike would have turned in to hatred. Therefore the Gujarath cannot be given clean chit for the attitude. I am receiving quite a lot of cases of Gujathi bosses incompatibility to Brahmins in Tamilnadu. The compatibility exist only when the Brahmin is his CA. However the case of Brahmins who have migrated from Tamilnadu to Gujarat is different.

harini,

not all brahmins from other states are like us.

in gujarat the forward communities are baniyas & jains. the brahmins have not taken to education like us. particularly english language education. they are pretty low on the poverty scale.

not surprisingly, there is no anti brahmin attitude there. even tamil brahmins are welcomed to do clerk jobs at the gujju industries.

 

[RKB]

If Daliths were not discriminated during colonial period and they had fair chance of education, they do not have any case for Reservation. One need not visit any history prior to that for inventing reasons. Why did not EVR Periyar got himself educated? He was not a Dalith? His family was closely connected with temples and therefore he could have had Vedic education only if he has chosen to have one. His family is a rich family and he could have definitely completed even Barrister education that poor Dr.Ambethkar managed to get.

With Caste Census over Reservation, Daliths are going to be fixed now by BC, MBC and OBC lobby. Daliths have no other place to go then Brahmins. This combination will be deadly against pseudo secularism.

You are speaking of brahmins in colonial India. Like Senthil and a few other pseudo-secular ppl, perhaps your view does not want to extend before the colonial period...

What reservation do i have? Well i have not even voted in this thread because i did not find the options well constructed. And what reservation can i have? If brahmins want reservations, they can very well go ahead and demand the same. But i feel rather sure that dalits will not allow brahmins to get reservations...

Regards.