the relevance of the brahmin way of life in the 21st. century

[kunjuppu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

TRR,

Thank You for your detailed note. i appreciate your stand and yur explanation, and i also respect your devotion to the kanchi mutt. let me give some thought and if something strikes, i will write further to you.

thanks again for your note, but please do not bestow any imagined honours on me. i simply do not have it. hope you understand.

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

When you first joined the Forum, I asked you whether the best interests of our 'community' is your aim. You affirmatively answered then.

Now it looks like you are questioning the validity of the definition 'Tamil Brahmins' applied to us as a community!

Entry in to any community is based on certain entrance criteria. A Jew is a Jew, if one's mother is a Jew. Now there are various sects within that 'community' representing wide spectrum of beliefs etc., but the Jews belong to a community called Jews. In your view, perhaps, 'birth' should not be one of them.

Fair enough. But to imply that an entire group of people who follow a certain culture based on tradition should be viewed as cateists is not correct. While casteism has it's evil side based on the history, that does not warrant saying that an entire community with various beliefs and practices can not be defined as community. In my view you bring your antipathy towards casteism (which most of us here agree with), to cast off an entire community. This is extremism, in my pov.

Unlike you, I do not hold the view that Brahminism (as you term it) is evil to the core. And whether you like it or not, it forms the foundation of our culture as a community. Reforming the evils that exist within our religion and community does not need to start with attempts to negate both our religion and community.

If you think so, fine. But please allow the rest of us to take pride and joy in being part of both, albeit by accident of birth, without being called as casteists.

Thanks,

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS:

....Now it looks like you are questioning the validity of the definition 'Tamil Brahmins' applied to us as a community!

I don't know where you are getting this from. Please clarify.

In your view, perhaps, 'birth' should not be one of them.

No, what I am saying is, "birth" is a necessary criterion for entry to this "community" called Brahmins and that is the reality. That makes it a caste-based community, in no less a way than Mudaliyar Sangam, or Nadar Peravai or whatever else there may be. I am just pointing out that you can't have a Brahmin "community" that is somehow different from Brahmin caste. This is trying to draw a distinction where there is no difference.

But to imply that an entire group of people who follow a certain culture based on tradition should be viewed as cateists is not correct.

I never said anything about being a castiest in any sense, let alone in a pejorative sense. I never even used the word "castiest". I am only objecting to the claim that "Belief in the caste system is not a pre-requisite" to think of oneself as a Brahmin. This is self-contradictory. You can't belong to a caste-group, cherish its culture and tradition, and still claim to not believe in caste-system.

While casteism has it's evil side based on the history, that does not warrant saying that an entire community with various beliefs and practices can not be defined as community. In my view you bring your antipathy towards casteism (which most of us here agree with), to cast off an entire community. This is extremism, in my pov.

Once again, I must point out that I never said anything about castiesm. The starting point of discussion from my side was in post #12. My point is one cannot be a Brahmin and at the same time not believe in caste system. Just because you call it community, it does not cease to be a caste.

Sorry Shri KRS, I am not casting off an entire "community", my point is, you can't simply change the terminology from caste to community and just proclaim everything is dandy from now on. If you think casteism has its evil side, then it must be confronted and dealt with, not just swept under the rug. All past attempts at reform by the likes of Bhagavat Ramanuja himself have come to naught. That is why it is all the more important to face the challenge head-on and not perpetuate the identity-based separation by another name.

I do have the best interest of all human-beings in my mind, Brahmins included. I think the best way to save the tradition and culture of Brahmins is to first and foremost find a way to welcome everyone who wants to be a Brahmin, whatever that is, into their fold, like the Jews do. Then call it a Brahmin community, without any affiliation to Brahmin caste. At that point I fail to see the value of retaining a caste name for such a Community, but that is a different topic.

The litmus test to see whether one is really committed to welcome all comers into "Brahmin" fold is icm. Right after Thirvanandapuram Swayamvaram it was revealed that an overwhelming majority of participants did not want icm to be included in Swayamvaram even as an option to anyone who may be interested.

This is the reality. This is what I am talking about. I feel, as a bare-minimum, one has to declare unreserved approval for icm if he/she wants to claim there is what is called Brahmin community, different from Brahmin caste. If this makes me an extremist in your eyes, that is fine, but that still is only an unnecessary characterization that does not advance the debate. I can also make comments like this about the person making the arguments, but I won't -- not because I fear moderation from my brother , but because I think that is not the right thing to do.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

My comments in 'blue' below:

Dear Shri KRS:

I don't know where you are getting this from. Please clarify.
Let me quote you from this post, as that explains it. You say below: "I never said anything about being a castiest in any sense, let alone in a pejorative sense. I never even used the word "castiest". I am only objecting to the claim that "Belief in the caste system is not a pre-requisite" to think of oneself as a Brahmin. This is self-contradictory. You can't belong to a caste-group, cherish its culture and tradition, and still claim to not believe in caste-system."
This is exactly what I meant. I consider myself a Tamil Brahmin.(some others who consider themselves as such may not agree with that). This exists in every 'Community', as you know. But insisting that my 'caste' represents me, instead of what I call the Tamil Brahmin culture, you have attached me to a place where for me to call myself a Tamil Brahmin, I should accept casteism - which is in my definition is looking down upon other castes, thinking they are not equal etc. I don't do that in my life. So, why are are you classifying me under such a broad brush?


No, what I am saying is, "birth" is a necessary criterion for entry to this "community" called Brahmins and that is the reality. That makes it a caste-based community, in no less a way than Mudaliyar Sangam, or Nadar Peravai or whatever else there may be. I am just pointing out that you can't have a Brahmin "community" that is somehow different from Brahmin caste. This is trying to draw a distinction where there is no difference.
Again, I think of myself as belonging to this community. Believe me, the orthodox do not recognize me as a Brahmin. But, I do. That is my community. I don't understand how you can convince me that I am not a part of this 'community' sans any casteism on my part.

I never said anything about being a castiest in any sense, let alone in a pejorative sense. I never even used the word "castiest". I am only objecting to the claim that "Belief in the caste system is not a pre-requisite" to think of oneself as a Brahmin. This is self-contradictory. You can't belong to a caste-group, cherish its culture and tradition, and still claim to not believe in caste-system.
I have already addressed it above. I am a prime example to repudiate your claim that 'You can't belong to a caste group, cherish it's culture and tradition, and still claim to not believe in caste-system'.


Once again, I must point out that I never said anything about castiesm. The starting point of discussion from my side was in post #12. My point is one cannot be a Brahmin and at the same time not believe in caste system. Just because you call it community, it does not cease to be a caste.

Sorry Shri KRS, I am not casting off an entire "community", my point is, you can't simply change the terminology from caste to community and just proclaim everything is dandy from now on. If you think casteism has its evil side, then it must be confronted and dealt with, not just swept under the rug. All past attempts at reform by the likes of Bhagavat Ramanuja himself have come to naught. That is why it is all the more important to face the challenge head-on and not perpetuate the identity-based separation by another name.
Again, you are confusing things here. Ramanuja never wanted to destroy the caste system. He was opposed to the Brahmin by birth idea. Nothing else.

This goes back to the difference between you and me. I recognize the limitations of the human condition. You believe in the limitless capacity of a human being to change on a dime if only they 'knew' the 'Truth'. This is exactly why you believe in idealism even in political systems such as Communism. Over time in my life, I have come to realize that human beings are not that idealistic. Maslow's theory applies.

Things are changing. There is a law in the books of India, outlawing castes (how it is administered is another thing). Brahmin kids have almost the same life as their NB counterparts in secular life, except they are reminded at each turn that they are Brahmin - but that is a different story.



I do have the best interest of all human-beings in my mind, Brahmins included. I think the best way to save the tradition and culture of Brahmins is to first and foremost find a way to welcome everyone who wants to be a Brahmin, whatever that is, into their fold, like the Jews do. Then call it a Brahmin community, without any affiliation to Brahmin caste. At that point I fail to see the value of retaining a caste name for such a Community, but that is a different topic.

The litmus test to see whether one is really committed to welcome all comers into "Brahmin" fold is icm. Right after Thirvanandapuram Swayamvaram it was revealed that an overwhelming majority of participants did not want icm to be included in Swayamvaram even as an option to anyone who may be interested.

This is the reality. This is what I am talking about. I feel, as a bare-minimum, one has to declare unreserved approval for icm if he/she wants to claim there is what is called Brahmin community, different from Brahmin caste. If this makes me an extremist in your eyes, that is fine, but that still is only an unnecessary characterization that does not advance the debate. I can also make comments like this about the person making the arguments, but I won't -- not because I fear moderation from my brother , but because I think that is not the right thing to do.
The swayamvaram you talk about - in my opinion that was self selecting, run by casteists, and seemed to have been attended mainly by the orthodox of our COMMUNITY. That should not be the reflection on a Community.
ICM in that circumstance or any circumstance should not be a litmus test. It is not just caste, but culture (such as food, values etc.) that are secular are involved.

By the way within Judaism, if you convert, you convert in to a sect and can not practice another kind of that religion, unless you go through conversion again?

Anyways, I believe that love and patience are needed to let folks adapt to a life that is so different from their immediate forefathers/fathers, and it takes time. It never helps to heap vehemence upon our COMMUNITY based on yesterday's practices.


Cheers!

Regards, brother,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS, I noted your response, quite unconvincing. If only we all can define terms any which way we want. Your sensitivities not withstanding, "Brahmin" is a caste and if it is a "community" it is a caste-based community. No NB will be admitted into this community no matter what.

It seems you like the Brahmin identity, but not the caste tag -- you want to have it both ways -- கூழுக்கும் ஆசை, மீசைக்கும் ஆசை. One has to have a high level of tolerance for cognitive dissonance to pull this off -- if you can, good for you.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

Tamil Brahmins are a community. Some in it still practice caste based lives but more and more do not. But the beauty is that TODAY, anyone who wants to follow our religion suited to one's own temperament and spiritual development can follow his/her own path within our religion.

We are a community that has common cultural/social practices that are different from practicing casteism. These are much more common in binding us, than not.

This Forum is for promoting the interests of our community. Anything can be discussed here as long as it does serve the interests of our community. So we need to be careful when we discuss our religion which is followed by almost a billion people.

I have previously said that discussing about our holy men that are followed by a lot in our community is to be avoided. 'Matha, Pitha, Guru Deivam' is a part and parcel of our cultural belief. Just because one does not like Godmen, let us not make unprovable theories to throw mud on them. Many who think that these are walking divine as per our religion will be hurt in their sentiments. One has to be careful when making statements about Godmen here. While one may think that a particular Godman or all of them may be fake or not, I would request you to not go in to making unproven allegations against them.

In my opinion just calling everyone who calls himself/herself a Brahmin as a casteist is not valid. Brahmin carries a very broad definition today and to apply it to a very narrow sense of yesterday's casteistic color to me serves no purpose. Progressiveness should not be applied to places where the reason for it does not exist.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS,

You will kindly observe that I have not expressed anything directly against Swami Sivananda, though your inference — that I know about his not-so-edifying background — is correct. Now whether it is provable today after nearly a century depends upon availability of old people who can vouchsafe for it (I have heard from such reliable people) because the directly affected persons, his "agnisaakshi" Brahman wife as also the only child born of that union have both perished (in penury). After spending many years in Malaya as a doctor and living with a woman there, he came back to Pathamadai to find that his wife and child had been driven away from the village due to utter poverty and could not be traced and, that was when, he took to the religious route. I feel that as human beings our first and foremost duty is to our family if we marry and in case we have such great attraction for religion and asceticism, we should not, in the first instance, marry. Hence I hold him as having a "not-so-satisfactory" poorvashramam. Whatever he did later does not count much for me.

I agree that there are many people among Brahmans who blindly follow or even worship one swami or another and that indiscriminate following is one of the major causes for deterioration of our religion and the rise of ever so many fake swamis. While people take minutes to check whether each brinjal is good while buying vegetables, they don't take even a small share of that care before falling for swamis.

IMHO, this forum should not ban criticism of godmen, swamis, etc., in polite words on the mere basis that it will hurt the many people who are ardent followers of swamijis and godmen. If that (viz., hurt caused to members of the Brahman community) is the yardstick, then much of what goes on in these general discussions should also not be allowed, because people like S/Shri Saidevo, Suraju, Vivek etc., have plainly expressed their dislike for such "reformist" views. Of course, the forum will continue, with hagiographies, slokas, mantras, etc. But those aspects are not very much to my liking.

Hence I request you to reconsider your views.

 

[ShivKC]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

When you first joined the Forum, I asked you whether the best interests of our 'community' is your aim. You affirmatively answered then.

Now it looks like you are questioning the validity of the definition 'Tamil Brahmins' applied to us as a community!

Entry in to any community is based on certain entrance criteria.
KRS

ShiveKC Ji,
You don't get to override the Moderator's edits. You are very close to getting an infraction. If you want to pick a particular post and argue on points, go ahead. This sort of blanket reference is not allowed -KRS
Edtd-KRS
Dear Sri ShivKC Ji,

What you have posted is in bad taste. You have taken my words addressed to Professor Nara Ji and applied to someone else without context. Please do not use other's words to settle your scores. If you have an issue with someone's posting, address them directly on the ISSUE. This kind of taking pot shots against someone is not allowed. - KRS

 

[sangom]

To answer Shri Sangom, what reforms are feasible:
1. In a way, we have forgotten the original role intended for brahmins. Some say we are Vaishyas and in the opinion of others whatever we are doing is anything but brahminical. Let us think of a role where we try to do something for the society by some acts e.g. Annadhanam for all as we can do that.

Shri TRR,

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. First, let me say clearly that you are seeing more plus points in me than there really are.

Coming to the above quoted portion, I agree that we Tabras have left the Veda-learning, vaaideeki Brahman's role a long time ago. I hold the view that it is because the role of the Brahman caste was so defined that they could lead their lives on the wealth of their yajamanas who were desirous of performing the yagas. (In fact there was a class of yagas called "satra" which could go on for years - 12 or 15 years - and the Brahmanas had a gala time for so many years at the cost of the king, which means the sweat and toil of others. The "satrams" which we know of today, take that name from the ancient 'satra' where large accommodations used to be arranged for the hundreds of Brahmins.)

Now, most of us have taken to service, which is the sudra's occupation, and we still claim our monoploy on learning the vedas, I think the first reform that should be made in our outlook is that learning the vedas, reciting them, teaching them and doing vaideeki rites will be open to all hindus irrespective of caste. Despite what you say about HH Kanchi, I am not sure if he will initiate or even bless such a reform. And that is what makes HH and Bharatiar poles apart.

I agree with the rest of your suggestions.

There is a need to throw open this discussion to the community at large and I am sure that more suggestions and instances would come.
Kunjuppu Sir, Sangom Sir and seniors, these are all my own opinions.
Namaskarams

I hope we will have some constructive discussions.

 

[T R RAMAMURTHY]

Shri Sangom,
I think what is relevant is that there must be a beginning. Let us admit that there are many things that are possible for us while remaining as Tabras. Invidually, we need not shun brahminism. Neither I suggest that Kanchi Mutt should bless the reforms taking us to Bharathiar. We have already been taken individually though collectively we are in a denial mode. Except for a very few handful of us who are able to follow the vaideeka dharma, rest of us (as an example) eat outside in restaurants and tolerate things. All the purohits take tea/coffee etc. We need to do this because our vocation forces us do so. That is why I say let us practice brahminism or whatever we can follow inside the four walls of our rooms (I am not saying houses) first. Whether I am a brahmin or not, nothing on earth forbids me from praying and practising bhakti marg of the reformers including Sai Baba of Shirdi or Kabir Das of the north. The religion need not disturb me from practising a way of life where I do not indulge in prohibited things. Therefore, I say that whether the Mutt blesses or not, the changes are going to occur and how the staunch people would adjust to the things to come in future is the question to answer. It is for the sociologists and the psychologists to answer how cultural changes occur and how are they assimilated. But we Tabras must learn to assimilate whether we like or not. It is easier said than done. We have been uprooted from our land. I know of a Tamil SV family in Bareilly in UP which has maintained itself in the same Vaishnavite tradition for five generations except that they have stopped speaking in Tamil, but despite they maintain a Vaishnava Temple in UP and do all the pujas there. Let us protect the scriptures - dharmo rakshati rakshitaha. Let us protect the manthras like Gaayathri to protect ourselves. For these things you need not be a brahmin alone. When we are willing to admit that we are not going to revert ourselves to the lifestyle that existed six decades back, let us at least say that we are willing to adjust to the changes that are going to come but let us make them less rigorous and less abrasive.

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I beg to differe again. There have been instances of NBs (albeit foreigners) going through a process and calling themselves 'Brahmins'. This is happening today - may be not in a large scale but it does.

But your point is well taken. So far the castes have benn mostly closed groups. The only point where we disagree is that you say such groups must be destroyed, while I say that by the necessities of modern life, the change is already occurring.

This is not to paint you the same - but as recently as in 1975, a mad man named Pol Pot became the unquestioned leader of a country called Cambodia. He was out to change the whole community of that nation on one fine day, destroying what he considered as 'bad' culture from the past, shooting all he considered as intellectuals, forever damaging that country. He particularly targeted the Chinese descendants (Like Brahmins they were at the apex of that society for a long time) and wiped out both their culture and people alike. This is what happens when a theorist acts on his theory without any consideration to a human being's right to his forefathers' culture. It is heart wrenching.

Regarding my 'cognitive dissonance', I am a small man in my world view. I do not hold within myself the responsibility to change the world and all it's inequities. I try to do it for myself and I struggle. Who am I to think that somehow I can change something that even a great Saint as Acharyal Ramanuja could not change as you say. I guess I will carry this disease of 'cognitive dissonance' with me to my grave.

By the way it is not a question of having it 'both' ways for me. Tamil Brahmin culture to me is mainly in the music, cuisine, festivals and the vedantic traditions. These I cherish and relish. I just leave the rest alone. Everyone should make one's own bed, yes?

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS, I noted your response, quite unconvincing. If only we all can define terms any which way we want. Your sensitivities not withstanding, "Brahmin" is a caste and if it is a "community" it is a caste-based community. No NB will be admitted into this community no matter what.

It seems you like the Brahmin identity, but not the caste tag -- you want to have it both ways -- கூழுக்கும் ஆசை, மீசைக்கும் ஆசை. One has to have a high level of tolerance for cognitive dissonance to pull this off -- if you can, good for you.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

There have been instances in the past, where comments on Godmen/Gurus were allowed and in some other instances they were edited out. Let me give you these two opposing examples:

1. Kept in: One of our fellow Moderators at one time asked the Bhakthas of Periaval, why he would not allow widows to take part in certain ceremonies or to perform a Namaskaram. The Bhakthas offered many explanations, which were not satisfactory to him on logical basis and he said that for him, Maha Periaval was not someone he would follow as his own mother was a widow and he knew the indignities she suffered in her life. Fair enough. And I did not edit this out, as it contained one single instance and he did not carry it to say that Maha Periaval was bogus, etc.

2. Edited out. - Recently there was a gentleman in this Forum, intent on 'proving' in this Forum the sham of Swami Sathya Sai Baba of Bangalore. His 'proof?' U-Tube videos purportedly taken of him performing magic that are just ordinary tricks. He also started posting some allegations about some unspeakable acts supposedly carried out by him. He insisted somehow this made the swami a sham. Now, I know scores and scores of people who worship the Swamy. I myself do not, but I talked to them. To them their bond with this man is sacred. Many follow him and serve him because of his charities. So, here the sentiments are along the lines of 'Matha, Pitha, Guru Deivam'. I told this gentleman that he can not post unproven allegations about a person of the Swamy's stature in this Forum. If he has substantiated any one of his allegation with concrete accepted evidence, okay, then use this Forum. But he insisted on using this Forum to show that godmen are all sham by just posting non whetted internet allegations. I just could not permit that so, I removed his posts.

The reason I am saying is this. Your allegations about Swami Sivananda is just that - allegations. Yes, a trusted person might have told this to you, but this still is an unproven allegation, especially because the third parties who told you this (we do not know their agenda), are all gone. So, what is the use of bringing in Dr. Kuupusamy's life here that are not known, to tarnish the entire glorious life of Swamy Sivananda, who has so many followers and did so many good things?

Let us assume, what happened did happen. So what? It is between him and his God. To me it has no carry over as he became a Swamy and contributed to the welfare of mankind. Besides, who am I to judge? This is because of two reasons: 1) we usually do not know the whole story and 2) even if we do, we are not capable of judging.

So, you judged him. That is fine and it works for you. The problem arises when you take your judgement based on allegations and try to use it to apply as a generic example to show that most Godmen/Gurus are a sham. Because these are allegations, that is where the issue is. Unless you can prove your allegations definitively you should not post them. If you can, more power to you and please, by all means, post.

This is, I respectfully say is different from hurting the sentiments of folks holding a personal view of their culture. Critiquing their stand is akin to evaluating the merits of one's food habits, versus the former, which is akin to criticizing one's mother's cooking. If you want to criticize one's mother's cooking, you better have all your facts straight!

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS,
You will kindly observe that I have not expressed anything directly against Swami Sivananda, though your inference — that I know about his not-so-edifying background — is correct. Now whether it is provable today after nearly a century depends upon availability of old people who can vouchsafe for it (I have heard from such reliable people) because the directly affected persons, his "agnisaakshi" Brahman wife as also the only child born of that union have both perished (in penury). After spending many years in Malaya as a doctor and living with a woman there, he came back to Pathamadai to find that his wife and child had been driven away from the village due to utter poverty and could not be traced and, that was when, he took to the religious route. I feel that as human beings our first and foremost duty is to our family if we marry and in case we have such great attraction for religion and asceticism, we should not, in the first instance, marry. Hence I hold him as having a "not-so-satisfactory" poorvashramam. Whatever he did later does not count much for me.

I agree that there are many people among Brahmans who blindly follow or even worship one swami or another and that indiscriminate following is one of the major causes for deterioration of our religion and the rise of ever so many fake swamis. While people take minutes to check whether each brinjal is good while buying vegetables, they don't take even a small share of that care before falling for swamis.

IMHO, this forum should not ban criticism of godmen, swamis, etc., in polite words on the mere basis that it will hurt the many people who are ardent followers of swamijis and godmen. If that (viz., hurt caused to members of the Brahman community) is the yardstick, then much of what goes on in these general discussions should also not be allowed, because people like S/Shri Saidevo, Suraju, Vivek etc., have plainly expressed their dislike for such "reformist" views. Of course, the forum will continue, with hagiographies, slokas, mantras, etc. But those aspects are not very much to my liking.

Hence I request you to reconsider your views.

 

[Nara]

.....This is not to paint you the same - but as recently as in 1975, a mad man named Pol Pot became the unquestioned leader of a country called Cambodia.

[..]

.... Tamil Brahmin culture to me is mainly in the music, cuisine, festivals and the vedantic traditions. These I cherish and relish.

Dear Shri KRS, Let me sign off with the following two observations:

[1] Citing Pol Pot, the disclaimer "not to paint you the same" not withstanding, is quite unfortunate. There is absolutely no connection whatever, not even the மொட்டைத்தலை to முழங்கால் kind of comparison. Not even the most ardent anti-Brahmin DK-party type is saying anything of the sort.

What I am advocating is for each individual Brahmin to do some critical self-analysis and drive out that "I-am-Brahmin" demon -- it is there, for some deep down, and for others right there on the surface. For whom it is on the surface it is not a problem because they like this demon. Those for whom it lurks deep inside, it is worth the effort, on the other side we have a beautiful vision of life filled with freedom, love, and compassion.

[2] I think to cherish and value the "music, cuisine, festivals and the vedantic traditions" that you grew up with, you don't have to attach yourself to a caste identity. Doing so only erects unnecessary walls between human beings.

best regards ....

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri ShivKC Ji,

I have deleted your rambling last post. Please understand that you do not challenge the authority of the Moderator here in the first place. Next you have not earned any place here to be considered special - what all I see is a person puffing up with no intellectual background.

If you again challenge the Moderator here you will be booted out unceremoniously. Go to places where the likes of you would be welcome. I will never give allowance to your casteist thoughts here. Comprende, my friend?

Regards,
KRS

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Brahmins v/s Brahmins

No body is as confused as Brahmins themselves about Brahmins. And the whole discussions are tinged with sadness. I think some of us are most seriously affected by anti-Brahminism. I can only liken this to a man in the woods frightened at the sight of a lion, embraced the lion itself. What would you have been if the entire universe had only Brahmins? Just another man! Why can't you be now just that without spiting others.