-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
The Great Hindu Tradition
- Thread starter Sarma sasthrigal
- Start date
- Status
N
Nara
Guest
This is a popular canard, got ingrained in the Brahmin popular culture, and even some NBs. He never said the above or wrote it anywhere. It is useless asking suraju06 to produce evidence better than mere heresay, because there is none.
But a connection between Brahmins and snake was indeed made, by Manu. I give below two verses from Chapter 4:
135. Let him who desires prosperity, indeed, never despise a Kshatriya, a snake, and a learned Brahmana, be they ever so feeble.
136. Because these three, when treated with disrespect, may utterly destroy him; hence a wise man must never despise them.
How great is the Brahmana's learning that he can't stand a little disrespect and will utterly destroy the offender, like a snake would!!!!136. Because these three, when treated with disrespect, may utterly destroy him; hence a wise man must never despise them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sri Raghy
"DK party is only a political party whose policies are discriminatory. Belonging to that party or sympathysing that party is not a bad thing per se. It is only a choice."
It is bad because it is such support from which they grow to become strong and polarize society in the same way Shiv Sena is doing today.
"There are brahmins who like to safe guard scriptures as gospels, even if such scriptures are discriminatory towards other communities, even if such scriptures refuse equal opportunities to all the persons across the whole society. Everyone should oppose such scriptures. That lady member only expressed anger about the brahmins who wote such discriminatory scriptures and the brahmins who safe guard such scriptures."
To bring scriptures like BG and present things in correct light is exactly what organizations like Arya Samaj did. For Happyhindu or Nara however, the message of the BG is not considered "brahminism". Manu Smriti is however "brahminism" for them. The point is that brahmins had wrote a great deal in the past and it all exists, we definitely have the reason to discern.
Another thing about Happyhindu is she believes brahmin struggles to casteism were done under "social pressure" - many cases of history tells us this wasn't the case. The fact that goes unacknowledged in TN society is that brahmins have a legacy way before mutts, and which goes larger than practices of ill-treating people, which is why brahmins have been there in every revolution appealing to the human emotion. What DK did was not a struggle against casteism, which is why TN still has casteism in worst forms.
"She wanted vedic knowledge to be opened for all the persons irrespective of caste. Why shouldn't a dalit learn Agama rules and methods to conduct pooja sequences that are conducted in temples? It is secondary, whether that dalit would use it or not; but it should be available. Why not the mutts make that knowledge available to everyone? this was her huge question."
Should I point that I have asked these questions way before even entering this forum? The "Dravidian movement" as we saw its genesis tried to present brahmins as evil, foreign oppressors, which is the issue and how they tried to justify exiling them from TN ignoring the larger role they had in the freedom struggle and in tamil history. This remains unacknowledged, which is exactly why many tend to think the exiling was okay.
"Sir, acharam (madi) is fine."
No it is not. Please read my argument even against it. Unlike what Kunjuppu says, this realization is not about a shock treatment EVR gave - its noted in the Manisha Panchakam and in the story of Uttanga too. As I said brahmin "shastras" are very varied, it only depends on what we choose to take inspiration from. At no point did I say its fine because practices like madi aren't fine. They instill a wrong idea of purity.
"I do'nt remember this lady blaming brahmins across the board for the voilence of other NBs. "
I am not blaming "this lady" Happyhindu in particular, just the general polarization of TN society as done by DMK using casteism as a gimmick to political power that I am against.
"I request you not to group the members. Every message has its merits and demerits. Some messages are more deeper than they appear to be. "
I am giving my opinions based on what people type - just has they do theirs based on what I type.
"I believe in honesty. I respect honesty. That's why I wrote this message."
I believe in honesty too. And I don't think TN ruling party has been honest about the legacy of brahmins which is why Sangom speaks of TN society as "brahmins and common people", in a manner like we are the green-skinned aliens who landed in TN yesterday.
Regards,
Vivek.
"DK party is only a political party whose policies are discriminatory. Belonging to that party or sympathysing that party is not a bad thing per se. It is only a choice."
It is bad because it is such support from which they grow to become strong and polarize society in the same way Shiv Sena is doing today.
"There are brahmins who like to safe guard scriptures as gospels, even if such scriptures are discriminatory towards other communities, even if such scriptures refuse equal opportunities to all the persons across the whole society. Everyone should oppose such scriptures. That lady member only expressed anger about the brahmins who wote such discriminatory scriptures and the brahmins who safe guard such scriptures."
To bring scriptures like BG and present things in correct light is exactly what organizations like Arya Samaj did. For Happyhindu or Nara however, the message of the BG is not considered "brahminism". Manu Smriti is however "brahminism" for them. The point is that brahmins had wrote a great deal in the past and it all exists, we definitely have the reason to discern.
Another thing about Happyhindu is she believes brahmin struggles to casteism were done under "social pressure" - many cases of history tells us this wasn't the case. The fact that goes unacknowledged in TN society is that brahmins have a legacy way before mutts, and which goes larger than practices of ill-treating people, which is why brahmins have been there in every revolution appealing to the human emotion. What DK did was not a struggle against casteism, which is why TN still has casteism in worst forms.
"She wanted vedic knowledge to be opened for all the persons irrespective of caste. Why shouldn't a dalit learn Agama rules and methods to conduct pooja sequences that are conducted in temples? It is secondary, whether that dalit would use it or not; but it should be available. Why not the mutts make that knowledge available to everyone? this was her huge question."
Should I point that I have asked these questions way before even entering this forum? The "Dravidian movement" as we saw its genesis tried to present brahmins as evil, foreign oppressors, which is the issue and how they tried to justify exiling them from TN ignoring the larger role they had in the freedom struggle and in tamil history. This remains unacknowledged, which is exactly why many tend to think the exiling was okay.
"Sir, acharam (madi) is fine."
No it is not. Please read my argument even against it. Unlike what Kunjuppu says, this realization is not about a shock treatment EVR gave - its noted in the Manisha Panchakam and in the story of Uttanga too. As I said brahmin "shastras" are very varied, it only depends on what we choose to take inspiration from. At no point did I say its fine because practices like madi aren't fine. They instill a wrong idea of purity.
"I do'nt remember this lady blaming brahmins across the board for the voilence of other NBs. "
I am not blaming "this lady" Happyhindu in particular, just the general polarization of TN society as done by DMK using casteism as a gimmick to political power that I am against.
"I request you not to group the members. Every message has its merits and demerits. Some messages are more deeper than they appear to be. "
I am giving my opinions based on what people type - just has they do theirs based on what I type.
"I believe in honesty. I respect honesty. That's why I wrote this message."
I believe in honesty too. And I don't think TN ruling party has been honest about the legacy of brahmins which is why Sangom speaks of TN society as "brahmins and common people", in a manner like we are the green-skinned aliens who landed in TN yesterday.
Regards,
Vivek.
Last edited:
Sri Kunjuppu
"on march 7 1967 tamil nadu too took a radical change in its destiny with the establishment of the dravidian revolution. starting that day, with a deliberate intention, by the rule of the law, without bloodshed and peacefully too, the transfer of social influence and established but never verbalized privileges were transferred from the tambrams to the other groups."
Kunjuppu, I don't agree to your comparision of monarchs to brahmins in TN society, the equation was hardly one clique against a lot - it was more like one small group being the ill-treated bunch. Brahmins were part of TN society and legacy all the while, like all upper castes. The point here is what DK did was not actually even look into the issue of casteism or try to solve it - what it did do was exile a community based on quotas. Maybe you can clarify if you agree that act of exiling through quotas.
"as tambrams, we lost. all we are doing now is a too late post mortem, i think. many of us have reconciled to the change of rule which over the past 44 years has produced two generations of intelligentsia from the NB groups of tamil nadu."
Yes, and it was the mutts and general cuture that dishonoured us. My question is does it become right to exile a community, and negating its larger legacy not just in an archaic past but even in the freedom struggle? Which TB is taught to think that his identity pertains to Bharatiyar instead of the mutt heads?
The issue of casteism taken up in TN by the DK is centered around what brahmins did in a dark era, and completely ignores rest of upper castes. It was the DK that polarized this as brahmins and non-brahmins, only because EVR was himself of an upper caste NB and couldn't work to vilify his own community. All in all, DK became an attack on a community rather than solution to a social problem - and that is exactly why there is no solution to violent forms of casteism practiced in rural TN. The only response is blaming brahmins by pointing a Manu Smriti, when these violence are the independent actions of those individual criminals.
Till now, DK/DMK have not come to acknowledge the role brahmins played in the freedom struggle, or for that matter in TN legacy. We are presented as invaders, foreigners - its this etched view which many TBs have of themselves that is the problem.
"it may be of interest to note, that whatever differences these NB groups, including dalits have within themselves, agains the tambram they are united. "
Because DK polarized them that way by presenting such a worldview and version of history - of "aryan" invaders and "dravidian" natives. At what point was TN society in history polarized this way before DK? The struggle against casteism should have been against all forms, not just about temple entry - that is what I am saying.
"the DK was a social movement which succeeded. to invoke the supposed friendship of periyar to rajaji or MK with his brahmin chelas, does not discount the fact that the tambram power is no more and unlikely ever to rise again. "
And what sort of power equation do you imagine I set to establish? Have a society that looks at casteism for what it is - not a polarized version of it merely because one leader of theirs was denied opportunity to a temple. The fact is many dalits have been denied wages, many attacked, many ill-treated in ways unspeakable. These apparently are not issues for the social movement.
"those tambrams outside of tamil nadu were not at all affected by the dravidian revolution. it gave them a good topic to discuss over a cup of coffee or beer, and that was just it."
And where do you get this piece of information? Tambrams made no big deal of it, which is the actual thing. Their culture boistered by education took them to heights wherever they went, it doesn't change the fact that DK did polarize TN society - and your comments only seem to agree with the actions of DK.
Its wrong to say that they weren't affected by it because they were outside TN. Contrary, many went outside because of the institutional exile.
"i think, today in tamil nadu, as long as we are willing to consider ourselves as just one of the numerous groups, we can live in peace."
We are one of the numerous groups - as always. And there are all high castes who show a sense of superiority (though not justified) when it comes to dealing with lower sections. What remains today is a political view which presents brahmins as a culture of evil - ones who have contributed nothing to society, who are foreign "aryans". That is a view I want to ask if you support.
"whether we as tambrams like it or not, we too have been impacted by periyar. today, in this forum, even the most ardent traditionalists does not defend the incongruences and inequalities embedded in our scriptures. "
This is another view I find dubious. This change in brahmins doesn't come because EVR removed his vengance on us, it came because of changing times. Our scriptures are varied, looking at them as one single sourced writting only gives us various opinions. The reason you, or many TBs in TN think that brahmin tradition only represents a display of supremacy or frosty-nosedness is because that is the only part of brahmin culture you have been made to believe exists.
You believe change was beaten into brahmins for the same reason that the political propaganda, assisted with the actions of the mutts allow you to believe that a negative legacy is all that we have, which is when you go to say "credit for all this goes to periyar."
Real challenges to caste ill-treatment have come from brahmins, not just as "sprouts in colonial India" as Happyhindu put it, but in history. What EVR did however was a plain crime that finds support for the guilt most TBs have been indoctrinated to believing as the only facet of their culture. To TBs, the mutts, madi, ill-treating low castes is "brahmin culture" - this is why casteism is popularly come to be called "brahminism". How many of those see the brahmins who fought against casteism? Not just since Basva or Bhartiyar, even before that in the Buddhist movement of India. These brahmins did so because they felt their philosophy appealed them to, this is the larger legacy of brahmins that goes ignored in TN, which goes to speak of the mutts, and casteism, and madi as the only aspects of brahmin culture. It was not EVRs propaganda against brahmins that got Arya Samaj to open doors to all.
Regards,
Vivek.
"on march 7 1967 tamil nadu too took a radical change in its destiny with the establishment of the dravidian revolution. starting that day, with a deliberate intention, by the rule of the law, without bloodshed and peacefully too, the transfer of social influence and established but never verbalized privileges were transferred from the tambrams to the other groups."
Kunjuppu, I don't agree to your comparision of monarchs to brahmins in TN society, the equation was hardly one clique against a lot - it was more like one small group being the ill-treated bunch. Brahmins were part of TN society and legacy all the while, like all upper castes. The point here is what DK did was not actually even look into the issue of casteism or try to solve it - what it did do was exile a community based on quotas. Maybe you can clarify if you agree that act of exiling through quotas.
"as tambrams, we lost. all we are doing now is a too late post mortem, i think. many of us have reconciled to the change of rule which over the past 44 years has produced two generations of intelligentsia from the NB groups of tamil nadu."
Yes, and it was the mutts and general cuture that dishonoured us. My question is does it become right to exile a community, and negating its larger legacy not just in an archaic past but even in the freedom struggle? Which TB is taught to think that his identity pertains to Bharatiyar instead of the mutt heads?
The issue of casteism taken up in TN by the DK is centered around what brahmins did in a dark era, and completely ignores rest of upper castes. It was the DK that polarized this as brahmins and non-brahmins, only because EVR was himself of an upper caste NB and couldn't work to vilify his own community. All in all, DK became an attack on a community rather than solution to a social problem - and that is exactly why there is no solution to violent forms of casteism practiced in rural TN. The only response is blaming brahmins by pointing a Manu Smriti, when these violence are the independent actions of those individual criminals.
Till now, DK/DMK have not come to acknowledge the role brahmins played in the freedom struggle, or for that matter in TN legacy. We are presented as invaders, foreigners - its this etched view which many TBs have of themselves that is the problem.
"it may be of interest to note, that whatever differences these NB groups, including dalits have within themselves, agains the tambram they are united. "
Because DK polarized them that way by presenting such a worldview and version of history - of "aryan" invaders and "dravidian" natives. At what point was TN society in history polarized this way before DK? The struggle against casteism should have been against all forms, not just about temple entry - that is what I am saying.
"the DK was a social movement which succeeded. to invoke the supposed friendship of periyar to rajaji or MK with his brahmin chelas, does not discount the fact that the tambram power is no more and unlikely ever to rise again. "
And what sort of power equation do you imagine I set to establish? Have a society that looks at casteism for what it is - not a polarized version of it merely because one leader of theirs was denied opportunity to a temple. The fact is many dalits have been denied wages, many attacked, many ill-treated in ways unspeakable. These apparently are not issues for the social movement.
"those tambrams outside of tamil nadu were not at all affected by the dravidian revolution. it gave them a good topic to discuss over a cup of coffee or beer, and that was just it."
And where do you get this piece of information? Tambrams made no big deal of it, which is the actual thing. Their culture boistered by education took them to heights wherever they went, it doesn't change the fact that DK did polarize TN society - and your comments only seem to agree with the actions of DK.
Its wrong to say that they weren't affected by it because they were outside TN. Contrary, many went outside because of the institutional exile.
"i think, today in tamil nadu, as long as we are willing to consider ourselves as just one of the numerous groups, we can live in peace."
We are one of the numerous groups - as always. And there are all high castes who show a sense of superiority (though not justified) when it comes to dealing with lower sections. What remains today is a political view which presents brahmins as a culture of evil - ones who have contributed nothing to society, who are foreign "aryans". That is a view I want to ask if you support.
"whether we as tambrams like it or not, we too have been impacted by periyar. today, in this forum, even the most ardent traditionalists does not defend the incongruences and inequalities embedded in our scriptures. "
This is another view I find dubious. This change in brahmins doesn't come because EVR removed his vengance on us, it came because of changing times. Our scriptures are varied, looking at them as one single sourced writting only gives us various opinions. The reason you, or many TBs in TN think that brahmin tradition only represents a display of supremacy or frosty-nosedness is because that is the only part of brahmin culture you have been made to believe exists.
You believe change was beaten into brahmins for the same reason that the political propaganda, assisted with the actions of the mutts allow you to believe that a negative legacy is all that we have, which is when you go to say "credit for all this goes to periyar."
Real challenges to caste ill-treatment have come from brahmins, not just as "sprouts in colonial India" as Happyhindu put it, but in history. What EVR did however was a plain crime that finds support for the guilt most TBs have been indoctrinated to believing as the only facet of their culture. To TBs, the mutts, madi, ill-treating low castes is "brahmin culture" - this is why casteism is popularly come to be called "brahminism". How many of those see the brahmins who fought against casteism? Not just since Basva or Bhartiyar, even before that in the Buddhist movement of India. These brahmins did so because they felt their philosophy appealed them to, this is the larger legacy of brahmins that goes ignored in TN, which goes to speak of the mutts, and casteism, and madi as the only aspects of brahmin culture. It was not EVRs propaganda against brahmins that got Arya Samaj to open doors to all.
Regards,
Vivek.
Sow. Happyhindu - You can easily believe Manu Smriti but not BG, why? You continue to play the blame game.
"My question was related to the shastras. The moot point is yes, the shastras upheld discrimination. Hence your reply should have been from the same shastra pov -- to address why social power and subjugating populations is so intertwined with kshatriya-hood."
The "shastras" are varied, you can pick anything written in the Hindu legacy of 3000+ years to pin blames on brahmins. Fact remains though that there are clear evidences to say that shastras don't look at people's caste based on birth, nor speak of ill-treating anyone too.
"The local brahmins refused to perform the pattabhishekham (coronation ceremony) for Shivaji. Finally Shivaji had to bring Gagabhatta from Kashi who constructed a geneology linking Shivaji to Rajputs to elevate him to kshatriya status and performed the coronation ceremony. Please note that Shivaji had to be elevated to a kshatriya status thru fabricated geneology; and only then he was coronated as a king."
Yes, but you are clean to evade the fact that his teacher was Kondadev, himself a brahmin. In a few days as caste politics take shape, the statue of Kondadev may be pulled down too. And efforts may be made (like in TN) to erase the positive legacy of brahmins completely, after which we will see a guilt-ridden Maharashtrian brahmin society too.
The point Happyhindu is that you can find brahmins at every revolution of this country, even while casteism was practiced through society - even if wrongly you insist it was brahmins who appointed people to do so. Social discrimination can find its purpose at any level, through any reason - because it is human nature. To call this what brahmins regarded as exclusively holy is your bias against brahmins.
"The local brahmins continued to deny the Bhonsales vedic rites and argued that as shudras they were entitled to perform only puranic rites. As a result, the Marathas had to take the support of Chitpavans who successfully meddled with the Sahyadri Khand of Skanda Purana to self-promote themselves."
And what are Chitpavans if not brahmins? Your statements assert the very view TN has of brahmins, in which it wraps their legacy to the worst and evilest things, completely ignoring the larger legacy they have undoubtedly had in Indian or TN history. Lastly, casteism has more facets than not being allowed to receite vedic rites - it is about ostracizing, about leaving a family to pay loans at high interest, about unpaid wages, about hours or work, about violence against a community. All this doesn't get your attention.
It is on this basis I think Anti-brahminism has polarized society against brahmins, for which Kunjuppu thinks the changes in brahmins has to be attributed to the shock-treatment delivered by EVR. Point is - no community changes that way. What none of you have the stomach to agree with in the view presented in TN society is:
1. DK did see casteism in a skewered perspective when the issue is much larger. In this way DK did polarize society.
2. Casteism was followed by all castes at their own behest not from "brahminical writting", if that were the case they could have just as easily taken inspiration from the BG.
3. DK didn't solve casteism, nor reached the lowest stratas of society giving them a sense of identity and revivial into the new era - and this is the reason rural areas have Tamil dalits who are still attacked.
"One cannot claim that brahmins were innocent victims who got vilified by politicians in a secular india. "
How are you looking at this? The point I am making is casteism was followed by all previlaged castes - including brahmins. The issue that derailed this into a negative worldview is polarizing society instead of condemning the issue on all fronts, as practiced by all previlaged classes. Kunjuppu tells that when it comes to tambrams all of TN society "whatever differences these NB groups, including dalits have within themselves, agains the tambram they are united."
Just why this is the case, is because DK smartly removed the role of men like Bharatiyar in TN history, while they indoctrinated this view of "brahmins vs. the rest" in their political propaganda of "aryan brahmins and dravidian natives" to steer clear of the casteism his own community followed.
So no I am not claiming "brahmins are innocent" but I am not claiming that brahmins born today should be held "guilty" either. That guilt-ridden view however is clear in the mindsets of many because of your rhetoric. The agenda should be for a better society, not one which has one community vilified and exiled, given that TBs were indeed part of tamil society and did contribute too.
"Going by the historic view, there was no time in history when caste was based on temperment. This is what the orthodoxy reflects. To the orthodoxy, even if a man's character is bad, he still is a brahmin because he was born into a brahmin family."
Sure, now tell me BG does "lip service". The very opinion here, you still go on about blaming brahmins. Let me ensure you that none of violent goons among the upper caste casteist incidents in rural areas are doing it by inspiration from "shastras" - they may have as well been inspired by BG too right? The point is, they do it of their own accord, of their understanding of society structure (based on wealth) which would have existed had the brahmins not ever existed in TN.
"It is rather stupid to designate a mentally crippled or a physically crippled person as a shudra. It is a dumb fallacy to think that shudras willfully chose to be slaves. No one will willfully allow his wealth could be snatched and/or allow himself to be terrorized into remaining a slave."
You clearly missed the meaning it had in the years through which it had been used. Note again that brahmins didn't call these people so and so, society did in the same way as you would (and all of us would) call a person who is part of the army, in the battle field a "soldier". People in the past who read, and pursued knowledge were called "brahmanas".
"Are you sure 'brahmins' existed long before mutts? On what basis do you say that?"
When was the first mutt established? Don't ask silly questions and derail the issue which is supporting DK for a crime and polarizing TN society against brahmins. Let me point back to what you said. You said that brahmins like Bharatiyar or the movement of Arya Samaj etc can't be taken to consideration because ""sprouts of colonial India". Maybe you need to explain that statement again, and tell me if it is not you effort to shun a brahmin legacy in fighting casteism.
"None of these organisations -- arya samaj, brahmo samaj, etc existed in pre-colonial india."
The records of pre-colonial India are themselves not out on the internet for me to show. In anycase, I can even point to the brahmin role in spread of buddhism, despite the fact that its shown like something brahmins tried to destroy it. Infact, the very name of learned buddhist monks is refered to as brahmana in many places. You can find this in Buddhist texts. One quick and sure reference (ie. from net) is Ashoka's edict which speaks of respecting "brahmanas". This is of course reference to learned people, and only loosely connected to the brahmin community or their culture.
" It was only due to stupid theories like aryan-dravidian divide and AIT, that hindus began to feel social pressure in colonial India. All these reactionary organisations (arya samaj, brahmo samaj, dalit mutts, etc)"
Sure, lol. For Raghy who thinks there is nothing in your comment against brahmins maybe he should read this.
AIT came by the 19th century end. Bharatiyar had no idea of it while he fought casteism, the brahmins like Bodhidharma, or Padmasambhava didn't do so under any "social pressure".
What you are adamant not to see is the other side of the brahmin legacy, and it is this view that has been nailed into TBs who think it was okay for EVR to exile the community, and okay for tamil society to look at them as an exclusive evil. All of it completely ignores the true nature of casteism or any social inequality for that matter, or the larger legacy of TBs.
"Am not talking of DK. We can jointly do DK-bashing later."
Have I wrote any foul language against DK? None of it of censoring type, because what I am saying of DK is not "bashing" its plain fact. Plain fact that they try to ignore a larger brahmin legacy, or tried to present casteism as exclusive of the brahmins so that EVR din't have to speak of his own community or the other facets of casteism, fact that DK's movement which is held in high regard here didnot solve casteism, nor come close to.
Btw, I am certain you don't have any negative opinions on DK. If any, only positive opinions of them. I have spoken against the mutts, you haven't given your opinion on the DK's policy as you continue to play the blame game on brahmins.
"please explain why you think a brahmin's life was not targetted at earning wealth? "
The wanderer in search of knowledge is the original duty of the brahmin. Maybe you can tell me what you think the brahmin culture is all about in your opinion. For you to judge brahmins based on TBs today, or say at one particular point is less valid than what was written of them through history.
"What do you think about the full explanation given by Chandrashekhara Swami's that BG supports caste by birth? Is not a family environment important?"
The environment is important. But refering to the later chapters of the BG there is absolutely no doubt that caste is based on the gunas and not on birth - you can read and check this for yourself. It is exactly the reason why ISCKON, Arya Samaj accept all into their fold - it is the revival of the earliest idea of varna.
"No one can claim that the Guptas were a hindu dynasty. Chandragupta Maurya first supported brahmanism but ended up converting to a jain towards the end of his career (as a king)."
Maybe Nara who spoke of your knowledge earlier in the AIT thread should read this comment of yours. Because this is new - who tells that Guptas were not a Hindu dynasty? You can hate brahmins, but you can't change history. Chanakya was with Chandragupta throughout, including when Chandragupta Maurya was a Jain. You clearly don't understand the vein in which philosophies were understood in earlier days, maybe if you lowered the brahmin-hating baggage you are carrying this side of history will come to your understanding.
"The greatest of all maurya emperors, Ashoka became a buddhist (so apparently he was not inspired by orthodox brahmanism either). "
I can't help it if you constantly call caste discrimination "brahminism". Is it brahminism that lead Chankya to chose Chandragupta Maurya? As I said, take time and read the usage of the word brahmana in buddhist texts, you can start with Ashoka's edicts themselves which mention it.
"Anyways, please explain why you claimed that during the time of mauryas, caste was based on character in hindusim?"
There was no mention of "Hinduism" in Hindu texts either - schools like Astika and Nastika. Buddhist schools like nastika mention brahmins too, the learned buddhist monks were refered to as brahmanas. And Ashoka's own teacher were Radhasvami and Manjushri, themselves a brahmins. Clearly, the lifestyle spoken of in Buddhism is quiet similar to what brahmins followed too.
The number of brahmins from even astika schools in Buddhism is enormous because religion in the political sense you try to use it in a debate against me by asking me "in Hinduism", didn't exist then. There were countless schools, many schools (like Buddhist) even called the learned in the school brahmanas. The ideas of what constituted correct lifestyle - including meditation, vegetarianism are common concepts too. This is why Padmasambhava came to established separate schools of Buddhism which became famous.
This part of brahmin legacy is unknown to TN society thanks to the mutts and the reviles of DK. You can speak of many others as "sprouts of colonial India" but it doesn't erase the past still.
"Well casteism from the shastra pov is still upheld only by the orthodox brahmins. "
Casteism today is being practiced by all of society - the mutts justify it using something written. The point is other organizations don't which is what you fail to see, and which is what can (in future) be used to challenge and attack the mutts.
"Please tell in which historic time period was varna based on temperment and not on the family of birth? And in which time period in history did varna become heredity?"
At which period is being a "teacher" based on temperament and when did it become heriditary? It happened gradually, and not the same time all over India. The account of varna in the BG are themselves shastra - very valid ones.
"Arrian's account mentions 7 groups that were cast together into a "caste" based on their occupation. They were social groups. Arrian's Indica does not mention the presence of a hindu chaturvarna sytem in which birth-based caste of the hindu dharmashastra kind were followed."
His account was what he saw in India, or in particular part of society. We see this today in modern india there are over 6000 castes, while texts hardly speak of so many.
"So how can you claim that the varna system (that is, hindu chaturvarna system) was based on temperment in the mauryan times?"
The buddhist references to brahmanas alteast tell that. The BG was written in reference to a time too, as was the Manu Smriti.
"So you are claiming that your family became brahmins when chandragupta was a king? What shd i say for such a fantastical (and untrue) claim -- wow!! Do you have any historical records to prove this?"
No. The era when I believe my Jain ancestors became brahmins is from account of Ennaiyram, which I am yet to verify btw. But it made sense to me when the Thirupugazh my mother reads had a reference to wiping out the Jains. The account of Ashoka's edicts or the Mauryas is of a different time (much earlier). The consideration of caste has been different at different empires and at different eras - not that at one particular point (throughout India) it was based heriditary and other it was based on temperament, throughout India.
"Sorry EVR did get the support of low-castes. And it is the low-castes who still vote DK into power."
He got their votes. The support I am speaking is of how the dalits speak of Ambedkar - as creator of their idenitty. EVR was voted to power because he seemed to take the issue of catseism, but it was used more like a political gimmick. The fact is that rural TN is affected with violent forms of casteims having nothing to do with brahmins and for which you blamed brahmins despite it being the actions of others.
"So explain how the boundries changed because the course of a river changed (which river was this) ?"
I already did. Go back an read.
"Dictionaries give meanings of words, not explanation on tribes / population groups. Anarya were population groups who did not follow the culture of vedic fire sacrifices and had their own worship beliefs."
Yes, they give meanings of the word Arya - and the meaning has nothing to do with a tribes name. The Pandavas in the Mahabharata were called Anarya based on their action of killing dronacharya through deceit. Don't argue for arguments sake, you haven't read it. It is this arya, dravidian idea which you are going at which was used to polarize TN society using casteism against brahmins (exclusively) without seeing the actual problem of it.
EVR did indeed wash his hands off the issue then, not the brahmins.
"You claimed that an "original varna system" based on temperment was followed during the maurya times. So provide proof for your claims -- go on and explain on what basis did you claim that a hindu varna system based on temperment (and not family of birth) was followed in the Maurya times?"
And proof of the way brahmana is used in Buddhist works, and the edict of Ashoka are proofs for the same. As well as the BG.
You are ready to look at Manu Smriti and say a crime was done, when you look at another text you find it hard to believe.
Regards,
Vivek.
"My question was related to the shastras. The moot point is yes, the shastras upheld discrimination. Hence your reply should have been from the same shastra pov -- to address why social power and subjugating populations is so intertwined with kshatriya-hood."
The "shastras" are varied, you can pick anything written in the Hindu legacy of 3000+ years to pin blames on brahmins. Fact remains though that there are clear evidences to say that shastras don't look at people's caste based on birth, nor speak of ill-treating anyone too.
"The local brahmins refused to perform the pattabhishekham (coronation ceremony) for Shivaji. Finally Shivaji had to bring Gagabhatta from Kashi who constructed a geneology linking Shivaji to Rajputs to elevate him to kshatriya status and performed the coronation ceremony. Please note that Shivaji had to be elevated to a kshatriya status thru fabricated geneology; and only then he was coronated as a king."
Yes, but you are clean to evade the fact that his teacher was Kondadev, himself a brahmin. In a few days as caste politics take shape, the statue of Kondadev may be pulled down too. And efforts may be made (like in TN) to erase the positive legacy of brahmins completely, after which we will see a guilt-ridden Maharashtrian brahmin society too.
The point Happyhindu is that you can find brahmins at every revolution of this country, even while casteism was practiced through society - even if wrongly you insist it was brahmins who appointed people to do so. Social discrimination can find its purpose at any level, through any reason - because it is human nature. To call this what brahmins regarded as exclusively holy is your bias against brahmins.
"The local brahmins continued to deny the Bhonsales vedic rites and argued that as shudras they were entitled to perform only puranic rites. As a result, the Marathas had to take the support of Chitpavans who successfully meddled with the Sahyadri Khand of Skanda Purana to self-promote themselves."
And what are Chitpavans if not brahmins? Your statements assert the very view TN has of brahmins, in which it wraps their legacy to the worst and evilest things, completely ignoring the larger legacy they have undoubtedly had in Indian or TN history. Lastly, casteism has more facets than not being allowed to receite vedic rites - it is about ostracizing, about leaving a family to pay loans at high interest, about unpaid wages, about hours or work, about violence against a community. All this doesn't get your attention.
It is on this basis I think Anti-brahminism has polarized society against brahmins, for which Kunjuppu thinks the changes in brahmins has to be attributed to the shock-treatment delivered by EVR. Point is - no community changes that way. What none of you have the stomach to agree with in the view presented in TN society is:
1. DK did see casteism in a skewered perspective when the issue is much larger. In this way DK did polarize society.
2. Casteism was followed by all castes at their own behest not from "brahminical writting", if that were the case they could have just as easily taken inspiration from the BG.
3. DK didn't solve casteism, nor reached the lowest stratas of society giving them a sense of identity and revivial into the new era - and this is the reason rural areas have Tamil dalits who are still attacked.
"One cannot claim that brahmins were innocent victims who got vilified by politicians in a secular india. "
How are you looking at this? The point I am making is casteism was followed by all previlaged castes - including brahmins. The issue that derailed this into a negative worldview is polarizing society instead of condemning the issue on all fronts, as practiced by all previlaged classes. Kunjuppu tells that when it comes to tambrams all of TN society "whatever differences these NB groups, including dalits have within themselves, agains the tambram they are united."
Just why this is the case, is because DK smartly removed the role of men like Bharatiyar in TN history, while they indoctrinated this view of "brahmins vs. the rest" in their political propaganda of "aryan brahmins and dravidian natives" to steer clear of the casteism his own community followed.
So no I am not claiming "brahmins are innocent" but I am not claiming that brahmins born today should be held "guilty" either. That guilt-ridden view however is clear in the mindsets of many because of your rhetoric. The agenda should be for a better society, not one which has one community vilified and exiled, given that TBs were indeed part of tamil society and did contribute too.
"Going by the historic view, there was no time in history when caste was based on temperment. This is what the orthodoxy reflects. To the orthodoxy, even if a man's character is bad, he still is a brahmin because he was born into a brahmin family."
Sure, now tell me BG does "lip service". The very opinion here, you still go on about blaming brahmins. Let me ensure you that none of violent goons among the upper caste casteist incidents in rural areas are doing it by inspiration from "shastras" - they may have as well been inspired by BG too right? The point is, they do it of their own accord, of their understanding of society structure (based on wealth) which would have existed had the brahmins not ever existed in TN.
"It is rather stupid to designate a mentally crippled or a physically crippled person as a shudra. It is a dumb fallacy to think that shudras willfully chose to be slaves. No one will willfully allow his wealth could be snatched and/or allow himself to be terrorized into remaining a slave."
You clearly missed the meaning it had in the years through which it had been used. Note again that brahmins didn't call these people so and so, society did in the same way as you would (and all of us would) call a person who is part of the army, in the battle field a "soldier". People in the past who read, and pursued knowledge were called "brahmanas".
"Are you sure 'brahmins' existed long before mutts? On what basis do you say that?"
When was the first mutt established? Don't ask silly questions and derail the issue which is supporting DK for a crime and polarizing TN society against brahmins. Let me point back to what you said. You said that brahmins like Bharatiyar or the movement of Arya Samaj etc can't be taken to consideration because ""sprouts of colonial India". Maybe you need to explain that statement again, and tell me if it is not you effort to shun a brahmin legacy in fighting casteism.
"None of these organisations -- arya samaj, brahmo samaj, etc existed in pre-colonial india."
The records of pre-colonial India are themselves not out on the internet for me to show. In anycase, I can even point to the brahmin role in spread of buddhism, despite the fact that its shown like something brahmins tried to destroy it. Infact, the very name of learned buddhist monks is refered to as brahmana in many places. You can find this in Buddhist texts. One quick and sure reference (ie. from net) is Ashoka's edict which speaks of respecting "brahmanas". This is of course reference to learned people, and only loosely connected to the brahmin community or their culture.
" It was only due to stupid theories like aryan-dravidian divide and AIT, that hindus began to feel social pressure in colonial India. All these reactionary organisations (arya samaj, brahmo samaj, dalit mutts, etc)"
Sure, lol. For Raghy who thinks there is nothing in your comment against brahmins maybe he should read this.
AIT came by the 19th century end. Bharatiyar had no idea of it while he fought casteism, the brahmins like Bodhidharma, or Padmasambhava didn't do so under any "social pressure".
What you are adamant not to see is the other side of the brahmin legacy, and it is this view that has been nailed into TBs who think it was okay for EVR to exile the community, and okay for tamil society to look at them as an exclusive evil. All of it completely ignores the true nature of casteism or any social inequality for that matter, or the larger legacy of TBs.
"Am not talking of DK. We can jointly do DK-bashing later."
Have I wrote any foul language against DK? None of it of censoring type, because what I am saying of DK is not "bashing" its plain fact. Plain fact that they try to ignore a larger brahmin legacy, or tried to present casteism as exclusive of the brahmins so that EVR din't have to speak of his own community or the other facets of casteism, fact that DK's movement which is held in high regard here didnot solve casteism, nor come close to.
Btw, I am certain you don't have any negative opinions on DK. If any, only positive opinions of them. I have spoken against the mutts, you haven't given your opinion on the DK's policy as you continue to play the blame game on brahmins.
"please explain why you think a brahmin's life was not targetted at earning wealth? "
The wanderer in search of knowledge is the original duty of the brahmin. Maybe you can tell me what you think the brahmin culture is all about in your opinion. For you to judge brahmins based on TBs today, or say at one particular point is less valid than what was written of them through history.
"What do you think about the full explanation given by Chandrashekhara Swami's that BG supports caste by birth? Is not a family environment important?"
The environment is important. But refering to the later chapters of the BG there is absolutely no doubt that caste is based on the gunas and not on birth - you can read and check this for yourself. It is exactly the reason why ISCKON, Arya Samaj accept all into their fold - it is the revival of the earliest idea of varna.
"No one can claim that the Guptas were a hindu dynasty. Chandragupta Maurya first supported brahmanism but ended up converting to a jain towards the end of his career (as a king)."
Maybe Nara who spoke of your knowledge earlier in the AIT thread should read this comment of yours. Because this is new - who tells that Guptas were not a Hindu dynasty? You can hate brahmins, but you can't change history. Chanakya was with Chandragupta throughout, including when Chandragupta Maurya was a Jain. You clearly don't understand the vein in which philosophies were understood in earlier days, maybe if you lowered the brahmin-hating baggage you are carrying this side of history will come to your understanding.
"The greatest of all maurya emperors, Ashoka became a buddhist (so apparently he was not inspired by orthodox brahmanism either). "
I can't help it if you constantly call caste discrimination "brahminism". Is it brahminism that lead Chankya to chose Chandragupta Maurya? As I said, take time and read the usage of the word brahmana in buddhist texts, you can start with Ashoka's edicts themselves which mention it.
"Anyways, please explain why you claimed that during the time of mauryas, caste was based on character in hindusim?"
There was no mention of "Hinduism" in Hindu texts either - schools like Astika and Nastika. Buddhist schools like nastika mention brahmins too, the learned buddhist monks were refered to as brahmanas. And Ashoka's own teacher were Radhasvami and Manjushri, themselves a brahmins. Clearly, the lifestyle spoken of in Buddhism is quiet similar to what brahmins followed too.
The number of brahmins from even astika schools in Buddhism is enormous because religion in the political sense you try to use it in a debate against me by asking me "in Hinduism", didn't exist then. There were countless schools, many schools (like Buddhist) even called the learned in the school brahmanas. The ideas of what constituted correct lifestyle - including meditation, vegetarianism are common concepts too. This is why Padmasambhava came to established separate schools of Buddhism which became famous.
This part of brahmin legacy is unknown to TN society thanks to the mutts and the reviles of DK. You can speak of many others as "sprouts of colonial India" but it doesn't erase the past still.
"Well casteism from the shastra pov is still upheld only by the orthodox brahmins. "
Casteism today is being practiced by all of society - the mutts justify it using something written. The point is other organizations don't which is what you fail to see, and which is what can (in future) be used to challenge and attack the mutts.
"Please tell in which historic time period was varna based on temperment and not on the family of birth? And in which time period in history did varna become heredity?"
At which period is being a "teacher" based on temperament and when did it become heriditary? It happened gradually, and not the same time all over India. The account of varna in the BG are themselves shastra - very valid ones.
"Arrian's account mentions 7 groups that were cast together into a "caste" based on their occupation. They were social groups. Arrian's Indica does not mention the presence of a hindu chaturvarna sytem in which birth-based caste of the hindu dharmashastra kind were followed."
His account was what he saw in India, or in particular part of society. We see this today in modern india there are over 6000 castes, while texts hardly speak of so many.
"So how can you claim that the varna system (that is, hindu chaturvarna system) was based on temperment in the mauryan times?"
The buddhist references to brahmanas alteast tell that. The BG was written in reference to a time too, as was the Manu Smriti.
"So you are claiming that your family became brahmins when chandragupta was a king? What shd i say for such a fantastical (and untrue) claim -- wow!! Do you have any historical records to prove this?"
No. The era when I believe my Jain ancestors became brahmins is from account of Ennaiyram, which I am yet to verify btw. But it made sense to me when the Thirupugazh my mother reads had a reference to wiping out the Jains. The account of Ashoka's edicts or the Mauryas is of a different time (much earlier). The consideration of caste has been different at different empires and at different eras - not that at one particular point (throughout India) it was based heriditary and other it was based on temperament, throughout India.
"Sorry EVR did get the support of low-castes. And it is the low-castes who still vote DK into power."
He got their votes. The support I am speaking is of how the dalits speak of Ambedkar - as creator of their idenitty. EVR was voted to power because he seemed to take the issue of catseism, but it was used more like a political gimmick. The fact is that rural TN is affected with violent forms of casteims having nothing to do with brahmins and for which you blamed brahmins despite it being the actions of others.
"So explain how the boundries changed because the course of a river changed (which river was this) ?"
I already did. Go back an read.
"Dictionaries give meanings of words, not explanation on tribes / population groups. Anarya were population groups who did not follow the culture of vedic fire sacrifices and had their own worship beliefs."
Yes, they give meanings of the word Arya - and the meaning has nothing to do with a tribes name. The Pandavas in the Mahabharata were called Anarya based on their action of killing dronacharya through deceit. Don't argue for arguments sake, you haven't read it. It is this arya, dravidian idea which you are going at which was used to polarize TN society using casteism against brahmins (exclusively) without seeing the actual problem of it.
EVR did indeed wash his hands off the issue then, not the brahmins.
"You claimed that an "original varna system" based on temperment was followed during the maurya times. So provide proof for your claims -- go on and explain on what basis did you claim that a hindu varna system based on temperment (and not family of birth) was followed in the Maurya times?"
And proof of the way brahmana is used in Buddhist works, and the edict of Ashoka are proofs for the same. As well as the BG.
You are ready to look at Manu Smriti and say a crime was done, when you look at another text you find it hard to believe.
Regards,
Vivek.
Sri Nara - Quoting EVR
Your claim is wrong. The quotes of EVR can be read from any internet site.
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy | Ask.com Encyclopedia
From the site: "Periyar was a radical advocate of anti-Brahminism. His anti-brahmanism was evident from his comments to his followers that if they encountered a Brahmin and a snake on the road they should kill the Brahmin first."
***
Need I quote more beautiful and awe inspiring quotes of this messaiah of yours?
http://www.bookrags.com/quotes/E._V._Ramasami_Naicker
"We will destroy the temple, burn the Brahmin extension, and make Brahmin women as public property (i.e. prostitutes.)"
(source: Lloyd I. Rudolph Urban Life and Populist Radicalism: Dravidian Politics in Madras The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3 (May, 1961), pp. 283-297).
Maybe you who spoke of me as being "very young", or Mr. Sangom, or any of you so awed by EVR's vendetta can justify such a rhetoric?
Regards,
Vivek.
Your claim is wrong. The quotes of EVR can be read from any internet site.
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy | Ask.com Encyclopedia
From the site: "Periyar was a radical advocate of anti-Brahminism. His anti-brahmanism was evident from his comments to his followers that if they encountered a Brahmin and a snake on the road they should kill the Brahmin first."
***
Need I quote more beautiful and awe inspiring quotes of this messaiah of yours?
http://www.bookrags.com/quotes/E._V._Ramasami_Naicker
"We will destroy the temple, burn the Brahmin extension, and make Brahmin women as public property (i.e. prostitutes.)"
(source: Lloyd I. Rudolph Urban Life and Populist Radicalism: Dravidian Politics in Madras The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3 (May, 1961), pp. 283-297).
Maybe you who spoke of me as being "very young", or Mr. Sangom, or any of you so awed by EVR's vendetta can justify such a rhetoric?
Regards,
Vivek.
Last edited:
N
Nara
Guest
Vivek, do you have any primary source? If so, provide it, otherwise, keep looking.
In the meantime folks, what Vivek has cited is on the web, Google Books has the book online look at page 292. You will see that this Maria Misra has an agenda. In this book she just attributes this statement to EVR, but no footnote, no reference. This is how urban legends are made.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nara
Guest
Hello young Vivek, I just downloaded this article you have cited from JSTOR by Rudolph -- being an academic has its advantages. I searched it, I can't find this statement you have copy pasted from some web site anywhere in the article. I now ask you to give the exact page number from this article where you say this statement appears.
May be you are a young man Vivek, very young man, sure, but not all young men fall for anything they see in the Web, they dig deeper and find what the truth is. So, don't use your youth as an excuse.
N
Nara
Guest
Folks, there is lot of Brahmin hatred directed towards EVR and DK. This is understandable because anti-Brahminism is a core tactics for them. I do understand it, but, at the same time, I also realize that to free the common folks from superstitions, and drilled-in lowliness and subservience, EVR had to break some hoary and sacred icons. Anti-brahminism was a useful tactics for freeing the enslaved.
However, contrary to the popular belief among TB, EVR himself eschewed violence of any kind to achieve political goals. The 1961 article of Rudolph that our own very young Vivek cites says so. Rudolph notes in this article the following:
However, contrary to the popular belief among TB, EVR himself eschewed violence of any kind to achieve political goals. The 1961 article of Rudolph that our own very young Vivek cites says so. Rudolph notes in this article the following:
See Link, April 24, 1960, for a DK member's attempt to assassinate Rajagopalachari. After the incident Naicker expressed his abhorrence of violence as a means of settling political differences and C. N. Annadurai, leader of the DMK, condemned the attempt with the "utmost disgust. By October 1960, Rajagopalachari, as leader of the new Swatantra Party, was paying tribute to Naicker on his 82nd birthday. He claimed to be his friend, and hoped to win him over in politics. Link, October 30, 1960. Such are the miracles wrought by the strength of the Dravidian appeal in Madras politics. " -- (see foot-note at the bottom of page 286)
There is a lot of myth about EVR circulating within the ranks of Brahmins, mostly motivated by fear and ignorance. Don't just believe anything anybody (yours truly included) says, look into it, look for primary sources, fret out the truth, and then make up your own mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
sangom
0
Dear Shri Nara,
Will you kindly send the Jstor article via e-mail? I am interested in it.
The dharmashastras are not varied when it comes to ill-treatment of shudras. Manu, Boudhayana, Vashista, Apasthamba meet out similar treatments to shudras. Caste is based on birth in all the dharmashastras. All brahmanical mutts are merely following what the shastras say. You can go and verify with them. You are not above any mutt for anyone to beleive your silly claims.
What's the use if Kondadev was Shivaji's teacher? Did Kondadev as an advisor and teacher, tell Marathas / Shivaji to allow dalits to change profession? Was any Mahar able to become a trader or a cheiftain during Shivaji's rule?
Sure brahmins have contributed a lot at all levels. But how does it matter when casteism is still kept alive by the orthodoxy? Social discrimination based on caste exists only in the dharmashastras. The shastras condition human nature into considering dalits as lesser humans. Such verses serve no purpose in today's world.
Chitpavans have no connection with the vedic migrations. Most were farmers, soldiers, and traders until 'peshwa-hood' happened to them. They are just a sanskritized group (that transformed themselves into brahmins). The orthodox amongst deshastas do not consider them brahmins even today.
I will come to DK soon. This discussion is about shastras, more specifically dharmashastras, and the historic times during which they were written and unleased upon the masses.
I am making this point because rampant casteism was practiced by brahmins in the years preceding India's independence. If brahmins stood to gain, then they elevated a shudra group into kshatriyas (with hiranyagarbas and tulabharams where ofcourse the brahmins stood to gain from the gold and gifts given to them by rulers). But when it suited brahmins, they went to court to demote castes, to fix their varnas and ofcourse by cornering government jobs. By doing this, i feel brahmins of the colonial period must have antagonised everyone. To the educated NBs this must have reflected in their mind as selfishness -- they may have realised that it was always all about how brahmins stood to gain. However, the anti-brahmanism of these colonial NBs was merely focussed on brahmins. They hardly did anything to uplift the dalits. The dalits infact owe their rise to present-day modernisation. Today sections (of both Bs and NBs) still hold on to ideas of caste superiority. However, with the way the world is modernizing, i feel its only a matter of time before the world becomes an equal and level-playing field for everyone where only merit / ability will matter and not caste.
When did i say present day brahmins should be held guilty? So far all i am saying is that the orthodoxy should give up birth-based divisions and casteism.
I have spoken to enough sanskrit experts on what the shastras mean by shudras. No one has said that a mentally crippled / physically crippled person can be designated as a shudra. Everyone agrees that the shastras convey caste to be by birth only. It is foolish to state that shudras willfully followed things. No shudra would have willfully allowed himself to be terrorized into slavery. Those who pursued knowledge were not necessarily brahmins. In vedic religion a brahmana simply was one who did yagams. It is not necessary that everyone who claims to be a brahmin today descended from vedic brahmins.
Non-sequitur again. Will come to DK soon. For now we are talking of hindu history so please stick to the topic at hand.
Anyways sorry Vivek, the whole concept of mutts or monastries was not there in the vedic religion. Only in jainism / buddhism, monks lived in monastries. In the vedic religion, the rishis lived in ashrams not in mutts, and most were married not celibates. The rishis were well versed in various homams. When they conducted homams for the yajamans, they were given cows or paid in kind. They had no necessity to seek bhiksha or go wandering in search of knowledge like the monks. The concepts of meditation and yoga was unknown atleast in the rigveda (we already spoke about these concepts being 'dasyu' concepts in a previous thread).
Vivek, did i mention bharatiyar or bodhidharma in the post above? All i mentioned was reactionary organisations like "arya samaj, brahmo samaj, dalit mutts, etc" which are sprouts of colonial india.
Why shd i speak of DK on a thread where we are discussing hindu history. You can do british-bashing, DK-bashing in the relevant places. It is obvious that you simply want to evade questions on shastras by diverting the topic to DK or the British.
Sorry the brahmin priest was paid for doing homams for the yajamans. He had no necessity to go wandering for knowledge. The concept of monks existed in Jainism in the pre-buddhist times. The concept of "hindu" celibate monks wandering for knowledge comes from the post-buddhist upanishadic period. Most upanishads were written in the post-buddhist period. And so also was Brahmasutra by Badrayana.
Which later chapters of BG? To the orthodoxy Bhagavad Gita supports caste by birth. I ask you again, what do you have to say about this: Character and Vocation by Birth from the Chapter "Varna Dharma For Universal Well-Being", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org: ? Are you saying that Chandrashekhara Swami's explanation is wrong then?
Non-sequitur again. Chanakya had an axe to grind against the Nandas. Which he more or less acheived. Chanakya had nothing to gain or lose if Chandraupta became a Jain.
It was Chanakya's sense of vengefulness against the Nandas that led him to Chandragupta Maurya.
Please mention in which vedic text is caste based on character and not family of birth? Btw, Brahmins were not vegetarians in the past.
The mutts have no reason to justify casteism. I wish that the public themselves speak up and question the orthodoxy about caste-divisions. I too want to know what purpose will birth-based caste-divisions serve in today's india?
Non-sequitur again. There was no time in history when varna in vedic religion was based on temperment -- it was always based on family of birth. Btw, not all teachers in all fields were brahmins. Just bcoz dronacharya taught archery does not mean everyone who taught martial arts were brahmins.
This was answered in the 'Brits are to Blame' thread. Here is the relevant post: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/4806-britis-blame-34.html#post56951
Account of Ennaiyram? Does it mention your family was converted into brahmins from jainism? More importantly does it mention your family was converted into brahmins because of their temperment?
Please mention post # where you explained how boundries of aryavarta changed based on the course of a river (and i ask again, which river was this?).
Now i must say lol. Anyways, interested readers can very well look up works of traditional commentators who classified populations / tribes as aryas and anaryas. There is no vedic literature where anyone is called arya based on character (and we are speaking of vedas only, not itihasas like mahabharat which were written, interloped and/or modified over a period of time).
I am not speaking about Buddhism or Buddhist works. Buddisht concept are way different from vedic concepts. So no point talking about buddhist concepts of "brahman". Even the buddhist concept of gotra is different - that does not mean the vedic religion accepts their concepts / definitions. So forget buddhism. Provide proof based on vedic literature or from history texts, that in maurya times the vedic chaturvarna system was based on temperment.
S
SwamiTaBra
Guest
Just today, I saw a piece in a tamil daily (Dinakaran) that Madras High court has upheld the decision of HR & CE order that only Brahmin priests can make prasadams at the Tiruvannamalai temple.
As far as I know, not one TV channel carried this news yesterday.
It appears Karunanidhi has realised that he better not waste time and energies in meddling with such matters. (who knows Dayalu, Rajathi Ammals besides Durga might have prevailed upon him.)
Rgds.
As far as I know, not one TV channel carried this news yesterday.
It appears Karunanidhi has realised that he better not waste time and energies in meddling with such matters. (who knows Dayalu, Rajathi Ammals besides Durga might have prevailed upon him.)
Rgds.
Ah he is a very old man at the fag end of his life. No one expect him to be bothered about social issues anymore.
Anyways, i feel its not Durga nor the Ammals, it is more possible that KN got satisfied from the crores in his kitty from the 2G scam. So he is not interested in social issues anymore.
i am very disappointed with the court decision. i sure hope that we have qualified priests of all castes able to perform pujas at our hindu temples.
Sri Nara
"Vivek, do you have any primary source? If so, provide it, otherwise, keep looking.
In the meantime folks, what Vivek has cited is on the web, Google Books has the book online look at page 292. You will see that this Maria Misra has an agenda. In this book she just attributes this statement to EVR, but no footnote, no reference. This is how urban legends are made."
Sure sure every Misra and Iyer has an "agenda" against good ol' EVR. I provided the source. Besides that EVR's nature of tackling the issue needs no explaination.
"Hello young Vivek, I just downloaded this article you have cited from JSTOR by Rudolph -- being an academic has its advantages. I searched it, I can't find this statement you have copy pasted from some web site anywhere in the article. I now ask you to give the exact page number from this article where you say this statement appears."
It is not just that one site, it is avaliable everywhere. Sure, the whole world is lying against your messiah EVR.
By this debate, in which you justified the vilification of a community, I have proved myself more mature than you. Being young or old doesn't mean anything by itself. You became an ex-brahmin ignorant of the wider legacy brahmins have in India, and with that mindset you think everyone else born as brahmins should feel guilty for the actions of even others and give up their identity.
"there is lot of Brahmin hatred directed towards EVR and DK."
And there is lot of DK and EVR love towards TBs right? DK saw denial of entry to temples as the only facet of casteism, when there was much more to it. And that is exactly why it didn't tackle casteism. EVR's policy was to lash out against a community instead of see the problem for what it was, he couldn't attack his own community which is why he polarized tamil society into TBs and NBs.
"This is understandable because anti-Brahminism is a core tactics for them. I do understand it, but, at the same time, I also realize that to free the common folks from superstitions, and drilled-in lowliness and subservience, EVR had to break some hoary and sacred icons. Anti-brahminism was a useful tactics for freeing the enslaved. "
Good you agree their policy was anti-brahminism. Wrong yjay oy was "tactics for freeing the enslaved", you can only say that because you seriously haven't come across the conditions of dalits anywhere. Anti-brahminism was flourishing under the DK government when dalits still remained enslaved under rich upper caste NBs.
Way before DK's hate-propaganda, was movement of men like Bharatiyar who spoke of education in society - that was a real stuggle against casteism, which you, or DMK will not come to acknowledge because it was started by and inspired by brahmins.
"There is a lot of myth about EVR circulating within the ranks of Brahmins, mostly motivated by fear and ignorance."
You lied earlier that despite anti-brahminism TBs are doing good. The reason Sangom believes his future in TN is to be quiet and accept being demonized is because of the guilt-psychosis ingrained into minds due to the polarization of tamil society.
Most TB are outside TN, for a good reason that they were exiled from there. Its because of their culture they made it big anywhere they went. None of it are myths - while those quotes of EVR are clearly all over the net, and DK's policy itself was anti-brahmin as you yourself agreed. If such a thing had happened anywhere else in the world it would have been considered a crime - only it is not in TN which is so indoctrinated to see casteism in only one facet and accept such an act. Casteism is more than denial of entry into temples - let me remind you and other DK supporters that.
Regards,
Vivek.
"Vivek, do you have any primary source? If so, provide it, otherwise, keep looking.
In the meantime folks, what Vivek has cited is on the web, Google Books has the book online look at page 292. You will see that this Maria Misra has an agenda. In this book she just attributes this statement to EVR, but no footnote, no reference. This is how urban legends are made."
Sure sure every Misra and Iyer has an "agenda" against good ol' EVR. I provided the source. Besides that EVR's nature of tackling the issue needs no explaination.
"Hello young Vivek, I just downloaded this article you have cited from JSTOR by Rudolph -- being an academic has its advantages. I searched it, I can't find this statement you have copy pasted from some web site anywhere in the article. I now ask you to give the exact page number from this article where you say this statement appears."
It is not just that one site, it is avaliable everywhere. Sure, the whole world is lying against your messiah EVR.
By this debate, in which you justified the vilification of a community, I have proved myself more mature than you. Being young or old doesn't mean anything by itself. You became an ex-brahmin ignorant of the wider legacy brahmins have in India, and with that mindset you think everyone else born as brahmins should feel guilty for the actions of even others and give up their identity.
"there is lot of Brahmin hatred directed towards EVR and DK."
And there is lot of DK and EVR love towards TBs right? DK saw denial of entry to temples as the only facet of casteism, when there was much more to it. And that is exactly why it didn't tackle casteism. EVR's policy was to lash out against a community instead of see the problem for what it was, he couldn't attack his own community which is why he polarized tamil society into TBs and NBs.
"This is understandable because anti-Brahminism is a core tactics for them. I do understand it, but, at the same time, I also realize that to free the common folks from superstitions, and drilled-in lowliness and subservience, EVR had to break some hoary and sacred icons. Anti-brahminism was a useful tactics for freeing the enslaved. "
Good you agree their policy was anti-brahminism. Wrong yjay oy was "tactics for freeing the enslaved", you can only say that because you seriously haven't come across the conditions of dalits anywhere. Anti-brahminism was flourishing under the DK government when dalits still remained enslaved under rich upper caste NBs.
Way before DK's hate-propaganda, was movement of men like Bharatiyar who spoke of education in society - that was a real stuggle against casteism, which you, or DMK will not come to acknowledge because it was started by and inspired by brahmins.
"There is a lot of myth about EVR circulating within the ranks of Brahmins, mostly motivated by fear and ignorance."
You lied earlier that despite anti-brahminism TBs are doing good. The reason Sangom believes his future in TN is to be quiet and accept being demonized is because of the guilt-psychosis ingrained into minds due to the polarization of tamil society.
Most TB are outside TN, for a good reason that they were exiled from there. Its because of their culture they made it big anywhere they went. None of it are myths - while those quotes of EVR are clearly all over the net, and DK's policy itself was anti-brahmin as you yourself agreed. If such a thing had happened anywhere else in the world it would have been considered a crime - only it is not in TN which is so indoctrinated to see casteism in only one facet and accept such an act. Casteism is more than denial of entry into temples - let me remind you and other DK supporters that.
Regards,
Vivek.
Sow. Happyhindu - Arya Samaj is from BG philosophy.
"The dharmashastras are not varied when it comes to ill-treatment of shudras. Manu, Boudhayana, Vashista, Apasthamba meet out similar treatments to shudras. "
Did I speak of variety in the "dharmashastras"? I am speaking of all literature written by brahmins, at the ethos of society through different times.
"What's the use if Kondadev was Shivaji's teacher? Did Kondadev as an advisor and teacher, tell Marathas / Shivaji to allow dalits to change profession? Was any Mahar able to become a trader or a cheiftain during Shivaji's rule?"
He himself accepted Shivaji. You are mistaken if you think brahmins were playing a puppet show for them to say something and leave all of society to accept it. The point is many brahmins did encourage people from the lowest strata to greatness, inspire them. All that however will be effaced because of caste politics. You are also forgetting the the bias against a low caste exists from all sections, not something that is done or can be altered by the saying of some brahmin. Its convenient for you to blame brahmins for the mistakes, and then ask why they didn't do changes. The point is by Kondadev accepting Shivaji he was making a change, but for society to change takes more.
"All brahmanical mutts are merely following what the shastras say. You can go and verify with them. You are not above any mutt for anyone to beleive your silly claims."
But the Upanishads and the BG are above the mutts. Arya Samaj is a separate organization too. These points against the mutts are not something I am creating, they have been created in scripture long ago.
"Sure brahmins have contributed a lot at all levels. But how does it matter when casteism is still kept alive by the orthodoxy?"
And why does the DK government not acknowledge that brahmins contributed? Why is it supported by people here like Nara that for the DK government to polarize society in the way it did with ideas of "foreign, aryan" brahmins is right?
Any society that had influence in any places has its mix of good and bad, to move ahead we need to be inspired by the good. Instead, from people like Sangom I see a defeatist attitude to keep quiet, because they silently believe that people are justified in hating them. And that is exactly what I am against. Casteism is more than just denial of entry into temples, or keeping separate veg-restaurants.
You are interested in orthdoxy of present times, when this degradation is throughout society. You are interested in calling the mutts brahminical, but for you Arya Samaj is a sprout of colonial India.
"Chitpavans have no connection with the vedic migrations. Most were farmers, soldiers, and traders until 'peshwa-hood' happened to them. They are just a sanskritized group (that transformed themselves into brahmins)."
And that makes them brahmins nevertheless. What "vedic migration"? Things have been found by recent researches in IVC which doubt AIT as well as AMT. It was however a good ploy to polarize tamil society - an idea still ingrained in people like Sangom unfortunately who use an expression like "brahmins and common people".
"If brahmins stood to gain, then they elevated a shudra group into kshatriyas (with hiranyagarbas and tulabharams where ofcourse the brahmins stood to gain from the gold and gifts given to them by rulers)."
Hardly did brahmins form the rich lot and everyone here knows it. So what is your reason of pointing to "gold and gifts"?
" However, the anti-brahmanism of these colonial NBs was merely focussed on brahmins. They hardly did anything to uplift the dalits. The dalits infact owe their rise to present-day modernisation. Today sections (of both Bs and NBs) still hold on to ideas of caste superiority."
And TBs had a great deal to do with the modernization of India, including the freedom struggle. Is that acknowledged by DK or Tamil society?
"When did i say present day brahmins should be held guilty? So far all i am saying is that the orthodoxy should give up birth-based divisions and casteism."
But if I am not mistaken you did say those practicing casteism in rural areas - be they even NBs, do so to climb up the caste ladder by following the "brahminist" Manu Smriti. Is this reasoning of yours valid given that they coulld have very well followed the BG or the Arya Samaj too? Why is Bharatiyar not "brahminical"? Does it ever occur for you to think that the mutts are the perversion of "brahminical" tradition or that there is another "brahminical tradition" even against casteism? You haven't been shown that because you live in a society whose mutts and DK government has polarized you.
"No one has said that a mentally crippled / physically crippled person can be designated as a shudra. Everyone agrees that the shastras convey caste to be by birth only. "
Strangely I have only come across the other meaning and everyone has told me that the present reason of caste becoming heriditary was because of a rigidity that came over our society later.
"Anyways sorry Vivek, the whole concept of mutts or monastries was not there in the vedic religion. Only in jainism / buddhism, monks lived in monastries. In the vedic religion, the rishis lived in ashrams not in mutts, and most were married not celibates."
So you are telling the mutts are not there in the vedic religion. So brahminical would mean either pertaining to the mutts or pertaining to the vedas? There are various lifestyle spoken off of brahmins - it even includes one of wanderers or those in humble settlements. The concept of calling men of learning or of a lifestyle, brahmanas was not a "Buddhist concept" it was a concept prevailant at that era in India.
"The concepts of meditation and yoga was unknown atleast in the rigveda (we already spoke about these concepts being 'dasyu' concepts in a previous thread)."
Wrong. The Concept of yoga is very much from brahmins (see the first texts written of it), written by and spread by them as their tradition too.
"Vivek, did i mention bharatiyar or bodhidharma in the post above? All i mentioned was reactionary organisations like "arya samaj, brahmo samaj, dalit mutts, etc" which are sprouts of colonial india. "
Your argument was that Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj came out because of pressure from colonial India, my point was that brahmins fought casteism since a long time.
"Which later chapters of BG? To the orthodoxy Bhagavad Gita supports caste by birth."
The chapters which speak of gunas. Arya Samaj spread the BG philosophy, as does ISCKON. Are you telling me you understand their philosophy better than they do their own?
"Chanakya had an axe to grind against the Nandas. Which he more or less acheived. Chanakya had nothing to gain or lose if Chandraupta became a Jain. "
The point is Chankya didn't bother if Chandragupta Maurya became a Jain because religion was not seen in the manner it is today - it was an individuals way of life.
"It was Chanakya's sense of vengefulness against the Nandas that led him to Chandragupta Maurya."
Yes. He still did however establish a empire and took talent from the lower stratas of society - this is exactly why Sangom's comparision of Chankya and EVR was wrong (as I pointed earlier). In DK's vengence society was not transformed, nor did the lowest get a better life. Catseism in TN was reduced to one aspect of denial to temples when it is much more than that.
"Please mention in which vedic text is caste based on character and not family of birth? Btw, Brahmins were not vegetarians in the past."
Yes they weren't vegtarians in the past as per legends. BG is from the vedic philosophy.
"There was no time in history when varna in vedic religion was based on temperment -- it was always based on family of birth. Btw, not all teachers in
all fields were brahmins. Just bcoz dronacharya taught archery does not mean everyone who taught martial arts were brahmins."
Sure, and BG was a big joke right? Brahmins taught various fields.
"Account of Ennaiyram? Does it mention your family was converted into brahmins from jainism?"
No, it doesn't mention directly. The account is that 8000 Jains (not astika brahmins) existed in the villages, and the Ashtasahasram Iyers trace themselves there.
"Anyways, interested readers can very well look up works of traditional commentators who classified populations / tribes as aryas and anaryas. There is no vedic literature where anyone is called arya based on character (and we are speaking of vedas only, not itihasas like mahabharat which were written, interloped and/or modified over a period of time)."
No traditional commentator did say aryas were people of so and so skin or nose as you previously claimed of dasas. The reference in the Mahabharata of the word "Anarya" as used to Pandavas who killed drona through deceit makes its meaning clear. How does your meaning explain this usage?
"I am not speaking about Buddhism or Buddhist works. Buddisht concept are way different from vedic concepts. So no point talking about buddhist concepts of "brahman". "
The references were not "Buddhist concepts", they were the very meaning of the word written as it is. The reason brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya are divided based on gunas is because the gunas is what the varnas represent. And this is exactly the reason (through the BG) by which the Arya Samaj takes all as long as they follow the lifestyle. The Manisha Panchakam is not important to the mutts for the simple reason that it doesn't accept their way. When brahmins can defend their tradition through various things written, the defeatist attitude Sangom and many TBs have retreated to is to believe they change because of a shock treatment of EVR. The point is there is many inspiration in Indian legends (written and spread by brahmins) to speak against casteism from which we need to take inspiration - similar to the Arya Samaj.
Regards,
Vivek.
"The dharmashastras are not varied when it comes to ill-treatment of shudras. Manu, Boudhayana, Vashista, Apasthamba meet out similar treatments to shudras. "
Did I speak of variety in the "dharmashastras"? I am speaking of all literature written by brahmins, at the ethos of society through different times.
"What's the use if Kondadev was Shivaji's teacher? Did Kondadev as an advisor and teacher, tell Marathas / Shivaji to allow dalits to change profession? Was any Mahar able to become a trader or a cheiftain during Shivaji's rule?"
He himself accepted Shivaji. You are mistaken if you think brahmins were playing a puppet show for them to say something and leave all of society to accept it. The point is many brahmins did encourage people from the lowest strata to greatness, inspire them. All that however will be effaced because of caste politics. You are also forgetting the the bias against a low caste exists from all sections, not something that is done or can be altered by the saying of some brahmin. Its convenient for you to blame brahmins for the mistakes, and then ask why they didn't do changes. The point is by Kondadev accepting Shivaji he was making a change, but for society to change takes more.
"All brahmanical mutts are merely following what the shastras say. You can go and verify with them. You are not above any mutt for anyone to beleive your silly claims."
But the Upanishads and the BG are above the mutts. Arya Samaj is a separate organization too. These points against the mutts are not something I am creating, they have been created in scripture long ago.
"Sure brahmins have contributed a lot at all levels. But how does it matter when casteism is still kept alive by the orthodoxy?"
And why does the DK government not acknowledge that brahmins contributed? Why is it supported by people here like Nara that for the DK government to polarize society in the way it did with ideas of "foreign, aryan" brahmins is right?
Any society that had influence in any places has its mix of good and bad, to move ahead we need to be inspired by the good. Instead, from people like Sangom I see a defeatist attitude to keep quiet, because they silently believe that people are justified in hating them. And that is exactly what I am against. Casteism is more than just denial of entry into temples, or keeping separate veg-restaurants.
You are interested in orthdoxy of present times, when this degradation is throughout society. You are interested in calling the mutts brahminical, but for you Arya Samaj is a sprout of colonial India.
"Chitpavans have no connection with the vedic migrations. Most were farmers, soldiers, and traders until 'peshwa-hood' happened to them. They are just a sanskritized group (that transformed themselves into brahmins)."
And that makes them brahmins nevertheless. What "vedic migration"? Things have been found by recent researches in IVC which doubt AIT as well as AMT. It was however a good ploy to polarize tamil society - an idea still ingrained in people like Sangom unfortunately who use an expression like "brahmins and common people".
"If brahmins stood to gain, then they elevated a shudra group into kshatriyas (with hiranyagarbas and tulabharams where ofcourse the brahmins stood to gain from the gold and gifts given to them by rulers)."
Hardly did brahmins form the rich lot and everyone here knows it. So what is your reason of pointing to "gold and gifts"?
" However, the anti-brahmanism of these colonial NBs was merely focussed on brahmins. They hardly did anything to uplift the dalits. The dalits infact owe their rise to present-day modernisation. Today sections (of both Bs and NBs) still hold on to ideas of caste superiority."
And TBs had a great deal to do with the modernization of India, including the freedom struggle. Is that acknowledged by DK or Tamil society?
"When did i say present day brahmins should be held guilty? So far all i am saying is that the orthodoxy should give up birth-based divisions and casteism."
But if I am not mistaken you did say those practicing casteism in rural areas - be they even NBs, do so to climb up the caste ladder by following the "brahminist" Manu Smriti. Is this reasoning of yours valid given that they coulld have very well followed the BG or the Arya Samaj too? Why is Bharatiyar not "brahminical"? Does it ever occur for you to think that the mutts are the perversion of "brahminical" tradition or that there is another "brahminical tradition" even against casteism? You haven't been shown that because you live in a society whose mutts and DK government has polarized you.
"No one has said that a mentally crippled / physically crippled person can be designated as a shudra. Everyone agrees that the shastras convey caste to be by birth only. "
Strangely I have only come across the other meaning and everyone has told me that the present reason of caste becoming heriditary was because of a rigidity that came over our society later.
"Anyways sorry Vivek, the whole concept of mutts or monastries was not there in the vedic religion. Only in jainism / buddhism, monks lived in monastries. In the vedic religion, the rishis lived in ashrams not in mutts, and most were married not celibates."
So you are telling the mutts are not there in the vedic religion. So brahminical would mean either pertaining to the mutts or pertaining to the vedas? There are various lifestyle spoken off of brahmins - it even includes one of wanderers or those in humble settlements. The concept of calling men of learning or of a lifestyle, brahmanas was not a "Buddhist concept" it was a concept prevailant at that era in India.
"The concepts of meditation and yoga was unknown atleast in the rigveda (we already spoke about these concepts being 'dasyu' concepts in a previous thread)."
Wrong. The Concept of yoga is very much from brahmins (see the first texts written of it), written by and spread by them as their tradition too.
"Vivek, did i mention bharatiyar or bodhidharma in the post above? All i mentioned was reactionary organisations like "arya samaj, brahmo samaj, dalit mutts, etc" which are sprouts of colonial india. "
Your argument was that Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj came out because of pressure from colonial India, my point was that brahmins fought casteism since a long time.
"Which later chapters of BG? To the orthodoxy Bhagavad Gita supports caste by birth."
The chapters which speak of gunas. Arya Samaj spread the BG philosophy, as does ISCKON. Are you telling me you understand their philosophy better than they do their own?
"Chanakya had an axe to grind against the Nandas. Which he more or less acheived. Chanakya had nothing to gain or lose if Chandraupta became a Jain. "
The point is Chankya didn't bother if Chandragupta Maurya became a Jain because religion was not seen in the manner it is today - it was an individuals way of life.
"It was Chanakya's sense of vengefulness against the Nandas that led him to Chandragupta Maurya."
Yes. He still did however establish a empire and took talent from the lower stratas of society - this is exactly why Sangom's comparision of Chankya and EVR was wrong (as I pointed earlier). In DK's vengence society was not transformed, nor did the lowest get a better life. Catseism in TN was reduced to one aspect of denial to temples when it is much more than that.
"Please mention in which vedic text is caste based on character and not family of birth? Btw, Brahmins were not vegetarians in the past."
Yes they weren't vegtarians in the past as per legends. BG is from the vedic philosophy.
"There was no time in history when varna in vedic religion was based on temperment -- it was always based on family of birth. Btw, not all teachers in
all fields were brahmins. Just bcoz dronacharya taught archery does not mean everyone who taught martial arts were brahmins."
Sure, and BG was a big joke right? Brahmins taught various fields.
"Account of Ennaiyram? Does it mention your family was converted into brahmins from jainism?"
No, it doesn't mention directly. The account is that 8000 Jains (not astika brahmins) existed in the villages, and the Ashtasahasram Iyers trace themselves there.
"Anyways, interested readers can very well look up works of traditional commentators who classified populations / tribes as aryas and anaryas. There is no vedic literature where anyone is called arya based on character (and we are speaking of vedas only, not itihasas like mahabharat which were written, interloped and/or modified over a period of time)."
No traditional commentator did say aryas were people of so and so skin or nose as you previously claimed of dasas. The reference in the Mahabharata of the word "Anarya" as used to Pandavas who killed drona through deceit makes its meaning clear. How does your meaning explain this usage?
"I am not speaking about Buddhism or Buddhist works. Buddisht concept are way different from vedic concepts. So no point talking about buddhist concepts of "brahman". "
The references were not "Buddhist concepts", they were the very meaning of the word written as it is. The reason brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya are divided based on gunas is because the gunas is what the varnas represent. And this is exactly the reason (through the BG) by which the Arya Samaj takes all as long as they follow the lifestyle. The Manisha Panchakam is not important to the mutts for the simple reason that it doesn't accept their way. When brahmins can defend their tradition through various things written, the defeatist attitude Sangom and many TBs have retreated to is to believe they change because of a shock treatment of EVR. The point is there is many inspiration in Indian legends (written and spread by brahmins) to speak against casteism from which we need to take inspiration - similar to the Arya Samaj.
Regards,
Vivek.
N
Nara
Guest
Vivek, you are entitled to your opinion just like anyone else, but you are not entitled to your own facts. You said:
Then, you triumphantly added, with a totally uncalled for snide (do your parents know this is how you converse with others, younger or older than you?):
Vivek, if you are honest, the very least you could do is maintain a sphinx-like silence like suraju06 does when caught in such a predicament. Instead you are doubling down, it is sad indeed.
Folks,
This story about Brahmin and snake has been around for a long time. I have heard it many times and I also believed it. Like some are doing here, I raised this point in my poorvashrama when I was a Brahminist following Brahmin svadharma. My opponent challenged me to give a citation for this statement and I thought that would be a piece of cake. I search high and low, but all I could find was hearsay, like the one Vivek is trumpeting. I was chastened by this experience. I am not averse to changing my stand if anyone can provide a verifiable reference, but until then, I wish to challenge anyone who makes this claim as I used to do.
Now, I grew up in a small village about 40 KM from Erode, the native place of EVR. I have seen bicycle processions with Congress Party members and DK party members, riding side by side, shouting slogans during election time. But never once did I feel threatened in way or form. As I grew older I became aware of EVR and DK from the Brahmin perspective. I know EVR can give incendiary speeches, but I always wondered how come he was so revered by everyone except B. Now, with many years of reflection, introspection, and a lot of reading, I know why.
Cheers!
From the site: "Periyar was a radical advocate of anti-Brahminism. His anti-brahmanism was evident from his comments to his followers that if they encountered a Brahmin and a snake on the road they should kill the Brahmin first."
This site from which you have done the cut and paste cites Misra page 292 as the source. In that page the author simply states the above quote with out any reference, no speech was cited, no article, no book. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the web knows that everything one reads in web sites are not necessarily true. One is required to dig deeper and fret out the truth.
Then, you triumphantly added, with a totally uncalled for snide (do your parents know this is how you converse with others, younger or older than you?):
It turns out this one is completely fake. This article does not have anything close to this at all.
Vivek, if you are honest, the very least you could do is maintain a sphinx-like silence like suraju06 does when caught in such a predicament. Instead you are doubling down, it is sad indeed.
Folks,
This story about Brahmin and snake has been around for a long time. I have heard it many times and I also believed it. Like some are doing here, I raised this point in my poorvashrama when I was a Brahminist following Brahmin svadharma. My opponent challenged me to give a citation for this statement and I thought that would be a piece of cake. I search high and low, but all I could find was hearsay, like the one Vivek is trumpeting. I was chastened by this experience. I am not averse to changing my stand if anyone can provide a verifiable reference, but until then, I wish to challenge anyone who makes this claim as I used to do.
Now, I grew up in a small village about 40 KM from Erode, the native place of EVR. I have seen bicycle processions with Congress Party members and DK party members, riding side by side, shouting slogans during election time. But never once did I feel threatened in way or form. As I grew older I became aware of EVR and DK from the Brahmin perspective. I know EVR can give incendiary speeches, but I always wondered how come he was so revered by everyone except B. Now, with many years of reflection, introspection, and a lot of reading, I know why.
Cheers!
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nara
Guest
HH, not just the orthodox Brahmins, but the words within BG itself give away that to the author of BG, whoever he may be (hope you don't think it was Krishna or even Vyasa), Varna was by birth. We have had this discussion before. Arjuna's laments at the end of Chapter 1 at the very least gives us a picture of birth-based varna. Then there are verses in Chapter 18 about karmas born out of svabahavam, i.e. by birth, that locks one into a varna. The most telling verses are 9.32 and 9.33.
I think it is the brahminical orthodoxy who offers the straight forward interpretation Varna from BG. Those who wish to downplay this reveal (i) they are uncomfortable/ashamed to admit that Varna is based on birth parents, and (ii) they try their best to muddy the water giving bits and pieces fished out to obscure the fact that varna in BG is determined by birth parents.
Cheers!
Sri Nara
"In that page the author simply states the above quote with out any reference, no speech was cited, no article, no book. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the web knows that everything one reads in web sites are not necessarily true. One is required to dig deeper and fret out the truth."
Are you defending EVR's words in general or trying to say he didn't have an anti-brahmin rhetoric? EVR's anti-brahmin rhetroic needs no introduction. Rhetoric being less important, policy spoke for itself when he institutionally exiled brahmins. And I don't agree with that.
"It turns out this one is completely fake. This article does not have anything close to this at all.
Vivek, if you are honest, the very least you could do is maintain a sphinx-like silence like suraju06 does when caught in such a predicament. Instead you are doubling down, it is sad indeed."
Is it fake, and why is it that I found it in multiple pages? If its their mistake in quote, you can provide a link to that article or even e-mail it to me.
Coming to the BG.
Which part of chapter 1 are you speaking about? The mention of the varna is clear in Bhagvad Gita 18.41
(from Chinmayananda's translation)
"Of scholars, of leaders and of traders, as also of workers, O Parantapa, the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature".
The following verses 18.42, 18.43 and 18.44 speak of the traits of the Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras and make it clear that their varna is born of their (individual) nature, and not birth.
The verses 9.32 and 9.33 speak of how devotion to Krishna can help anyone of any nature or varna - even those whose life isn't celebrated as brave heroes or intellectuals. Arjuna's lamenting throughout in the Mahabharata is all about Krishna clarifying his doubts. Its not a mention of the BG's teachings (from Krishna).
If you think the BG was about birth-based castes how would the ISCKON include everyone? Somehow to you this is not "brahminical", the worst and most divisive you can find a brahmin or an organization practice is labelled by you as "brahminism".
***
@ All
Apart this discussion of scriptures, the central question relevant to me here is how people here seem to support DK for its anti-brahmin stance or potrayal of casteism merely as an issue of denial to temple entry - given that casteism is a much bigger problem.
I see people justifying brahmin exiling saying it was necessary - but that didn't solve the issue of casteism did it? And fighting casteism in the method many leaders (not EVR) did by actually reaching to the lowest sections is hardly spoken of here.
Some here clearly seem to support a government which is adamant to not acknowledge the actual legacy of brahmins having reduced it to ficticious ideas of "aryan invaders", when brahmins have contributed to tamil society culturally and even through the freedom struggle. All it cares to potray is a negative view of TBs, and only that view.
I see people accepting the polarization of tamil society as "brahmins and common people" (as Sangom put it) as correct, even though this polarized view didn't ever exist before in any earlier time.
I see people looking at the caste equation from a pov of only denial of entry to temples, when it has a much larger meaning than that - got to do with violence on dalits, lack of paying wages, ill-treatment in the wealth equation.
I see TBs like Sangom themselves resigned to a view that it is okay for people to demonize and hate their community, despite the fact that such a judgement would not be fair to me frankly or to a TB born and growing tomorrow as a tamil and as a brahmin. And I feel someone like Sangom thinks all this is fine because they have been only made to see a negative part of a large brahmin tradition in India, that found itself in every revolution.
For the same reason do I find Kunjuppu's comparision to brahmins and the Egyptian dictator completely incorrect. Brahmins were a previlaged society, and like all others in the age had their share of exclusiveness. Brahmins were tamilians by heart, which is why they fought for tamil society, which is why they expanded its literature and music etc. How is this similar to some dictator of Egypt and his actions?
If people here justify the institutional exiling of brahmins. Let me ask (rhetorically): Should the other rich classes among tamil NBs be exiled for casteism in rural areas? Or would it be better for society to spread a message for the thinking to change, by changing attitude of seeing the lowest sections? This is why I hold the revolution of Bharatiyar, or organizations like Arya Samaj, or of Rabindranath Tagore, or even Chanakya higher than that of EVR - they reached to the lowest strata of people
The message that people here accept of DK is not one of a tamil society where people can live with respect, because it already has a great deal of negativity in its content - which is why brahmins have been exiled. TBs of course weren't affected because they contributed in work and commerce of other cities in India, or even abroad. But the acceptance to DK policy completely skips over other issues of casteism, for what it is. It surrounding itself around hating brahmins, ignoring their contributions completely and looking at them as "foreign aryan" and as justified in being hated and exiled.
Is all of that justified to this community members? If it is, my moral standing is far varied from that.
Regards,
Vivek.
"In that page the author simply states the above quote with out any reference, no speech was cited, no article, no book. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the web knows that everything one reads in web sites are not necessarily true. One is required to dig deeper and fret out the truth."
Are you defending EVR's words in general or trying to say he didn't have an anti-brahmin rhetoric? EVR's anti-brahmin rhetroic needs no introduction. Rhetoric being less important, policy spoke for itself when he institutionally exiled brahmins. And I don't agree with that.
"It turns out this one is completely fake. This article does not have anything close to this at all.
Vivek, if you are honest, the very least you could do is maintain a sphinx-like silence like suraju06 does when caught in such a predicament. Instead you are doubling down, it is sad indeed."
Is it fake, and why is it that I found it in multiple pages? If its their mistake in quote, you can provide a link to that article or even e-mail it to me.
Coming to the BG.
Which part of chapter 1 are you speaking about? The mention of the varna is clear in Bhagvad Gita 18.41
(from Chinmayananda's translation)
"Of scholars, of leaders and of traders, as also of workers, O Parantapa, the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature".
The following verses 18.42, 18.43 and 18.44 speak of the traits of the Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras and make it clear that their varna is born of their (individual) nature, and not birth.
The verses 9.32 and 9.33 speak of how devotion to Krishna can help anyone of any nature or varna - even those whose life isn't celebrated as brave heroes or intellectuals. Arjuna's lamenting throughout in the Mahabharata is all about Krishna clarifying his doubts. Its not a mention of the BG's teachings (from Krishna).
If you think the BG was about birth-based castes how would the ISCKON include everyone? Somehow to you this is not "brahminical", the worst and most divisive you can find a brahmin or an organization practice is labelled by you as "brahminism".
***
@ All
Apart this discussion of scriptures, the central question relevant to me here is how people here seem to support DK for its anti-brahmin stance or potrayal of casteism merely as an issue of denial to temple entry - given that casteism is a much bigger problem.
I see people justifying brahmin exiling saying it was necessary - but that didn't solve the issue of casteism did it? And fighting casteism in the method many leaders (not EVR) did by actually reaching to the lowest sections is hardly spoken of here.
Some here clearly seem to support a government which is adamant to not acknowledge the actual legacy of brahmins having reduced it to ficticious ideas of "aryan invaders", when brahmins have contributed to tamil society culturally and even through the freedom struggle. All it cares to potray is a negative view of TBs, and only that view.
I see people accepting the polarization of tamil society as "brahmins and common people" (as Sangom put it) as correct, even though this polarized view didn't ever exist before in any earlier time.
I see people looking at the caste equation from a pov of only denial of entry to temples, when it has a much larger meaning than that - got to do with violence on dalits, lack of paying wages, ill-treatment in the wealth equation.
I see TBs like Sangom themselves resigned to a view that it is okay for people to demonize and hate their community, despite the fact that such a judgement would not be fair to me frankly or to a TB born and growing tomorrow as a tamil and as a brahmin. And I feel someone like Sangom thinks all this is fine because they have been only made to see a negative part of a large brahmin tradition in India, that found itself in every revolution.
For the same reason do I find Kunjuppu's comparision to brahmins and the Egyptian dictator completely incorrect. Brahmins were a previlaged society, and like all others in the age had their share of exclusiveness. Brahmins were tamilians by heart, which is why they fought for tamil society, which is why they expanded its literature and music etc. How is this similar to some dictator of Egypt and his actions?
If people here justify the institutional exiling of brahmins. Let me ask (rhetorically): Should the other rich classes among tamil NBs be exiled for casteism in rural areas? Or would it be better for society to spread a message for the thinking to change, by changing attitude of seeing the lowest sections? This is why I hold the revolution of Bharatiyar, or organizations like Arya Samaj, or of Rabindranath Tagore, or even Chanakya higher than that of EVR - they reached to the lowest strata of people
The message that people here accept of DK is not one of a tamil society where people can live with respect, because it already has a great deal of negativity in its content - which is why brahmins have been exiled. TBs of course weren't affected because they contributed in work and commerce of other cities in India, or even abroad. But the acceptance to DK policy completely skips over other issues of casteism, for what it is. It surrounding itself around hating brahmins, ignoring their contributions completely and looking at them as "foreign aryan" and as justified in being hated and exiled.
Is all of that justified to this community members? If it is, my moral standing is far varied from that.
Regards,
Vivek.
@ All
(quoting Nara): " I was a Brahminist following Brahmin svadharma. My opponent challenged me to give a citation for this statement and I thought that would be a piece of cake. I search high and low, but all I could find was hearsay, like the one Vivek is trumpeting. I was chastened by this experience. I am not averse to changing my stand if anyone can provide a verifiable reference, but until then, I wish to challenge anyone who makes this claim as I used to do."
Not being able to find a sure source in the internet is not mean to say it doesn't exist. As for EVR, anti-brahmin policy (which speaks more loudly than any words) and even DMK's Karunanidhi's comments on Ram, everyone has heard them. These are not myths that popped out.
And what were you when you were a "Brahminist"? What does it even mean to be a "brahminist"? I am not one, if you look at it as the attitude of ill-treating people and displaying a pretentious air of superiority.
From the Bhagvad Gita 18.42 (Chinmayananda's translation)
"Serenity, self-restraint, austerity, purity, forgiveness, and also uprightness, knowledge, realisation, peity are the duties of the Brahmana"
I am not apologetic or guilty of being a brahmin for what some mutts did, or some dark era the community descended to. I am clear of the various meanings (in astika and nastika philosophy) of being a brahmana. I am proud of many parts of the legacy brahmins be it in the philosophy of Zen of Bodhidharma or of Advaita of Adi Shankaracharya, even look forward to realising/understanding them. I am free to enter my own sense of intution and reasoning in studying anything, and I believe it was the same traditions of earlier brahmins too, which is understood from the tale of Yagnavalkya disagreeing with his teacher.
I believe our civilization can move ahead by using its brains and also by taking inspiration from the past - a larger legacy than just the mutts or practices of casteism which we do have. I feel many have been made to feel guilty or apologetic for being born as brahmins; and I certainly think that is detrimental to the community and the nation.
Regards,
Vivek.
(quoting Nara): " I was a Brahminist following Brahmin svadharma. My opponent challenged me to give a citation for this statement and I thought that would be a piece of cake. I search high and low, but all I could find was hearsay, like the one Vivek is trumpeting. I was chastened by this experience. I am not averse to changing my stand if anyone can provide a verifiable reference, but until then, I wish to challenge anyone who makes this claim as I used to do."
Not being able to find a sure source in the internet is not mean to say it doesn't exist. As for EVR, anti-brahmin policy (which speaks more loudly than any words) and even DMK's Karunanidhi's comments on Ram, everyone has heard them. These are not myths that popped out.
And what were you when you were a "Brahminist"? What does it even mean to be a "brahminist"? I am not one, if you look at it as the attitude of ill-treating people and displaying a pretentious air of superiority.
From the Bhagvad Gita 18.42 (Chinmayananda's translation)
"Serenity, self-restraint, austerity, purity, forgiveness, and also uprightness, knowledge, realisation, peity are the duties of the Brahmana"
I am not apologetic or guilty of being a brahmin for what some mutts did, or some dark era the community descended to. I am clear of the various meanings (in astika and nastika philosophy) of being a brahmana. I am proud of many parts of the legacy brahmins be it in the philosophy of Zen of Bodhidharma or of Advaita of Adi Shankaracharya, even look forward to realising/understanding them. I am free to enter my own sense of intution and reasoning in studying anything, and I believe it was the same traditions of earlier brahmins too, which is understood from the tale of Yagnavalkya disagreeing with his teacher.
I believe our civilization can move ahead by using its brains and also by taking inspiration from the past - a larger legacy than just the mutts or practices of casteism which we do have. I feel many have been made to feel guilty or apologetic for being born as brahmins; and I certainly think that is detrimental to the community and the nation.
Regards,
Vivek.
If Wikipedia can be taken as a reliable source of information, then here are the quotes in its article on EVR about brahmins and snake:
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Periyar was a radical advocate of anti-Brahmanism. His anti-brahmanism was evident from his comments to his followers that if they encountered a Brahmin and a snake on the road they should kill the Brahmin first.[84] He also used violent and vulgar language in his writings against Hindu gods.[85]
However, at the same time, Periyar has also advocated the destruction of Brahmins.
"Only if the Brahmin is destroyed, caste will be destroyed. The Brahmin is a snake entangled in our feet. He will bite. If you take off your leg, that's all. Don't leave. Brahmin is not able to dominate because power is in the hands of the Tamilian[91]
84. Misra, Maria, Vishnu's Crowded Temple: India since the great rebellion, p. 292.
85. Dirks, Nicholas B. (2001). Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press. pp. 262. ISBN 9780691088952.
91. Viduthalai. July 30, 1957.
*****
The book titled 'EvErAvin maRupakkam' by M.Venkatesan (a Dalit) has this quote:
peiyar_marubakkam_part11 (muraNpADu 4)
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Periyar was a radical advocate of anti-Brahmanism. His anti-brahmanism was evident from his comments to his followers that if they encountered a Brahmin and a snake on the road they should kill the Brahmin first.[84] He also used violent and vulgar language in his writings against Hindu gods.[85]
However, at the same time, Periyar has also advocated the destruction of Brahmins.
"Only if the Brahmin is destroyed, caste will be destroyed. The Brahmin is a snake entangled in our feet. He will bite. If you take off your leg, that's all. Don't leave. Brahmin is not able to dominate because power is in the hands of the Tamilian[91]
84. Misra, Maria, Vishnu's Crowded Temple: India since the great rebellion, p. 292.
85. Dirks, Nicholas B. (2001). Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press. pp. 262. ISBN 9780691088952.
91. Viduthalai. July 30, 1957.
*****
The book titled 'EvErAvin maRupakkam' by M.Venkatesan (a Dalit) has this quote:
peiyar_marubakkam_part11 (muraNpADu 4)
Nara
This is what you have said to Vivek.
//Vivek, if you are honest, the very least you could do is maintain a sphinx-like silence like suraju06 does when caught in such a predicament. Instead you are doubling down, it is sad indeed."//
It is obvious that I have touched a raw nerve of you. I am amused. Thank you.
This is what you have said to Vivek.
//Vivek, if you are honest, the very least you could do is maintain a sphinx-like silence like suraju06 does when caught in such a predicament. Instead you are doubling down, it is sad indeed."//
It is obvious that I have touched a raw nerve of you. I am amused. Thank you.
S
SwamiTaBra
Guest
In the locality in which I reside, DK volunteers (or paid ones) once in an year plant their van, erect a dias and make the same incendiary speeches over and over again. Barring a few (less than 10), care to listen to those invectives.
Nowadays you hardly get to see the "seertherutha thirumanam", that was quite popular with NBs during 50s, 60s and to some extent in 70s. In fact Periyar used to charge a sizable amount for conducting those weddings, usually above what priests would have charged.
Things have changed. Most of the womenfolk in families (of NBs) insist on homam with an "Iyer".
An acquaintance of mine and his family are committed to DK. Their daughter got engaged. The bridegrooms' family (of course from the same jati) was astika and they insisted that wedding has to be conducted with homam etc.
They had to perforce acquiesce to conduct the wedding with an "Iyer".
Rgds.,
Nowadays you hardly get to see the "seertherutha thirumanam", that was quite popular with NBs during 50s, 60s and to some extent in 70s. In fact Periyar used to charge a sizable amount for conducting those weddings, usually above what priests would have charged.
Things have changed. Most of the womenfolk in families (of NBs) insist on homam with an "Iyer".
An acquaintance of mine and his family are committed to DK. Their daughter got engaged. The bridegrooms' family (of course from the same jati) was astika and they insisted that wedding has to be conducted with homam etc.
They had to perforce acquiesce to conduct the wedding with an "Iyer".
Rgds.,
Which literature written by brahmins supports caste by temperment and not family of birth? The author of Bhagavad Gita claimed that brahmins are endowed with certain qualities. But those qualities are said to be in a man since his birth and inherited and honed by the environment in which he is raised. That is how the orthodoxy interprets those shlokas on 'temperment'. Therefore from the orthodox pov (and also from the purvamimansa pov) the explanation of Chandrashekhara Swami that Bhagavad Gita supports caste by birth is correct.
Non-sequitur again. Take any self-appointed kshatriya in history, whether it is Harihara raya / Bukka raya, Shivaji, Achyutappa nayaka, or anyone else - you will always find a Vidyaranya, or a Kondadev, or a Govinda dikshita as an advisor. Such brahmins and rulers gained mutually and hence associated with each other. The brahmins gained protection and high status under the rulers (who promoted and patronized them). The rulers gained social position and status as kshatriyas and begot ritualism meant for dvijas from the brahmins.
None of these brahmin advisors ever asked the rulers to allow low-castes to change occupations. No Mahar under Shivaji's rule was allowed to become a trader or a chieftain.
Sorry but your personal pov does not make any difference. Finally what matters socially is the stand taken by the orthodoxy or the mutts.
Again, we are not talking of DK here. I suggest you finish talking about the hindu history and the shastras, and then move on to DK-bashing. Otherwise your posts are like a jumbled up mess.
Whatever you want to say to Sangom sir, say it to him directly on a post addressed to him. Otherwise it would be akin to the indirectly-direct name-calling that some elderly (but possibly cowardly) people indulge in here.
Arya samaj was established in the colonial period. So yes it is a sprout of colonial india. It is true that the chaturvarna system began from the grihyasutra and dharmashastra periods; and was non-existant before that. But ever since it came into being the chaturvarna system was always based on family of birth. In buddhism, character / temperment decided caste and not the family of birth. Hence in buddhism martial clans like mauryas were called kshatriya although they were not dvijas from the vedic pov.
The spirit of Arya Samaj is admirable in allowing anyone with the inclinition and the ability to train as priests. However Arya Samaj is not a mutt. The Samaj played no role in polity, they did not influence leaders or the indian constitution. They can make no difference to the society at large as long as the brahmanical orthodoxy propagates birth-based divisions.
I do not know how every sanskritised group can claim to be brahmins. I hope to put all details of various sankritization events on a blog someday (am certain it would displease many if not all casteists).
Well, in tulabharam the king was weighed in gold and the gold was distributed among brahmins. So obviously brahmins stood to gain by performing the pattabhishekham and associated coronation ceremonies of a ruler.
Non-sequitur with no connection to the question yet again. Anyways, perhaps you could make a seperate thread to list all TBs who modernized India.
Yes its true that NBs suppress low-castes in rural places bcoz they think it wud be a social embarassement to them if those low-castes become their equal. But why do they consider them 'low-caste'? Who designated those 'low-castes' as low-castes'? How did they get designated as 'low-castes'?
Just becoz i mention
1) shastras breed casteism,
2) shastras condition human nature,
3) orthodoxy should give up caste discrimination,
it does not mean that the present day brahmins should be held guilty. It merely means the orthodoxy must give up casteism. It is better you keep a check on your habit of assuming and claiming things.
I held the same opinion earlier. But changed my opinion after my studies became in-depth.
Yes there was no mutts in vedic religion. Nowhere in puranas, itihasas, vedas, do you find rishis living in monastries. Rishis lived in ashrams or gurukuls not in monastries / mutts. The whole concept of mutts happened in the "vedism" in the post-buddhist times. And that too these mutts were meant for celibate monks who followed vedanta not for purvamimansa priests who were usually married. The purvamimansa priests had no necessity to live in mutts bcoz they were trained by their fathers or in gurukuls.
To the vedic religion, the man who performs yaagams (follows brahmanical texts) is a brahman (this is the purvamimansa school). But to the vedantins, the man who has attained a particular state of mind is a brahman (this is the uttaramimansa school).
This is enough controversy regarding the creation of brahmanical texts. According to history, the brahmanas (texts) were written in the kuru regions, and so apparently they were appended (added) to the vedas after the samhita period. This is also supported by the charvaka view (according to whom the brahmana texts were added to the vedas at a later date). Since the links with the samhita composers was lost by this time hence some historians are of the opinion that there is no connection between present day brahmins and the vedic period. In addition there is also no connection between brahmins who composed the brahmanas (texts) in the kuru regions and the present-day brahmins (the conenction is considered either inconclusive or non-existant by historians). Another angle is that the brahmana texts kept changing hands at various points in time. There are yet other angles, but i feel all this is irrelevant to the thread. Here we are talking about whether or not the shastras created / breed casteism.
Please prove it. Which texts? Patanjali does not mention any asanas. Jain temples depicted people in asana postures (and ofcourse these were converted into hindu temples). Zimmer has written extensiely on the pre-aryan origins of yoga. Jaina concepts of yoga are supposedly older than those of Patanjali, although they got written down later. Me too think yoga belongs more to the jain tradition and was borrowed into the hindu tradition. Even the concept of fasting is not there in vedic literature. The vedic people used to sacrifice and consume all sorts of animals (they were not the fasting sort or the vegetarian sort).
Non-sequitur. Your answer has no connection to the question i asked nor the context in which you mocked with your lol in this post. Anyways, what difference does it make to anyone if brahmins fought casteism? Today casteism remains rampant in rural areas. It merely means everyone who fought against casteism all this while lost against the orthodoxy.
To you the chapters on gunas in BG support the fact that caste is by temperment and not on the family of birth. But what you think makes no difference to anyone. What matters socially is what the orthodoxy propagates. I cannot say i understand anyone's philosophy better than their own. But I do not know why you think Arya Samaj (AS) spread BG philosophy, esp when AS is focussed on spreading vedas, not just vedanta. I learnt sanskrit from classes run by arya samaj. I was also a member of arya samaj for quite some time. I appreciate arya samaj very much. But i think they got a few things wrong, esp wrt to manusmrithi and idol-worship, which is a seperate topic by itself and not related to this thread.
That can also mean Chanakya did not bother to help Chandragupta to reform brahmanism. Nor did he perhaps bother to show chandragupta the better side of vedism. As long as his own job (against the nandas) was done, Chanakya was satisfied and so (perhaps) he did not bother if chandragupta converted to jainism (to me, that wud mean chanakya was selfish).
This is an oft repeated falsity. Chanakya did not take talent from "lower stratas of society". The mauryas were already a martial group. Chanakya did not train the mauryas themselves or the vast maurya army in the usage of various arms or in battle strategies. Chanakya merely approached them and used them to satiate his vengence against the nandas. The mauryas are repeatedly called people of "low origin" just because they were not vedic dvijas. If the same yardstick were to be used to judge the origins of every martial group in india, then all martial groups of india will be of "low origin".
Non-sequitur again. Nowhere in vedic literature is caste based on character. It was always based on family of birth. All that the vedic writers did was to create casteism, bracket people into 4 rigid categories, and project themselves as people with nice qualities of self-restraint, purity, honesty, etc, etc. All those descriptions on the qualities of a brahmana are merely self-serving ones.
Well, its apparent you are not able to produce proof. All you do is keep claiming that caste was based on character and not family of birth. If you really want this discussion to be serious, provide proof from from either history or vedic literature that chaturvarna system based on character (and not family of birth) was followed by any kingdom or vedic social group at any point in history.
And how did they become "iyers" after having lived life as jains? Does the text say your family was made into "iyers" because of their temperment?
You can keep claiming and repeating. Anyone who is interested in this topic (ie, history of vedic religion) will know the difference between the vedic period and the itihasa period and how the usage of the terms "arya" and "anarya" changed by the time it came to the itihasa period. It is also well known that Mahabharat was interpolated / modified / written over a long period of time.
Non-sequitur with no connection to the question asked yet again. All you need to do is to provide proof from vedic literature or from history that an "original varna system" based on temperment (and not family of birth) was followed in the Maurya times as you claimed in post 60, in post 71 and in post 130.
Last edited:
The DMK was successful in demolishing caste barriers in one way -- practically all of Karunanidhi's family married brahmins (the latest was alagiri's son who married a tambram in madurai. So even the grand-children of Karunanidhi are following his path). Now that they are neo-brahmins themselves they will not bother about these social issues anymore. They are mainly bothered about filling their kitties with more crores.
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
Wanted [Cook Wanted] Female cook wanted in karapakkam Rajiv Gandhi salaiNeed a part time female home cook in karapakkam chennai
- Krishna65 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted [Others] Daily food deliveryNeed daily Tamil Brahmin vegetarian food delivery at Electronic City in Bengaluru.. any pointers...
- ksr1561 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Fulltime care person neededLooking for a fulltime lady who can look after 80 yr old person who has dementia. She can manage...
- vashok (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Free [Bride Wanted] Bride WantedLooking for Bride - Family Oriented and brought up from Cultured Family
- SRIKANT S -(Bride Wanted) (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
