Before I begin, I want to make it be known that this post is not to incite any communal strifes but instead share some questions that I have been ruminating over for a while.
If we classify brahmanas into categories, they would come under the following:
My second question pertains to the Sri Vaishnavas and their classification as Brahmins. Ramanujacharya does not "convert" anyone into Brahmins but says jivas are all equal and can attain moksha and went on to start the SV sect. Though this sect has brahmins in it, can they really be classified as brahmins solely on that account? From my research, I have understood that SV's become classified as such during the British times as they could not wrap their head around this aspect (much like the concept of pillais et cetera). So should SV's proudly claim brahmin-hood when the basic philosophy is against identifying yourself by caste-based identities and, in fact, asks for one to shed such ideologies (Re: Sharanagathi / Prapathi)? Furthermore, why does Vedantacharya promote varnashrama dharma and goes on to say that Perumal follows it / protects it (raguvera gadyam / thirivinagar oppilappan kovil sannithi's prapatti and mangalam) if it is ideologically not compatible? Or is varnashrama dharma to be followed because you were born into that family for a particular reason, etc?
Furthermore, why is it that TBs have solidified into Iyers and Iyengars when many Iyers follow Iyengar "traditions" like wearing different forms of Lakshmi-Narayana kadakshams (Gopi Chandanam, Namams), praying to Perumal, etc? Is it not quite restrictive in nature and against the idea of attaining knowledge if we all focus on fighting amongst ourselves on an ideological basis instead of practising what the various Acharyas have taught us?
I am unsure if this post has a "flow," but I just wanted an external opinion on the above.
If we classify brahmanas into categories, they would come under the following:
- Those who are born as one and continue to live as one.
- Those who live as one.
My second question pertains to the Sri Vaishnavas and their classification as Brahmins. Ramanujacharya does not "convert" anyone into Brahmins but says jivas are all equal and can attain moksha and went on to start the SV sect. Though this sect has brahmins in it, can they really be classified as brahmins solely on that account? From my research, I have understood that SV's become classified as such during the British times as they could not wrap their head around this aspect (much like the concept of pillais et cetera). So should SV's proudly claim brahmin-hood when the basic philosophy is against identifying yourself by caste-based identities and, in fact, asks for one to shed such ideologies (Re: Sharanagathi / Prapathi)? Furthermore, why does Vedantacharya promote varnashrama dharma and goes on to say that Perumal follows it / protects it (raguvera gadyam / thirivinagar oppilappan kovil sannithi's prapatti and mangalam) if it is ideologically not compatible? Or is varnashrama dharma to be followed because you were born into that family for a particular reason, etc?
Furthermore, why is it that TBs have solidified into Iyers and Iyengars when many Iyers follow Iyengar "traditions" like wearing different forms of Lakshmi-Narayana kadakshams (Gopi Chandanam, Namams), praying to Perumal, etc? Is it not quite restrictive in nature and against the idea of attaining knowledge if we all focus on fighting amongst ourselves on an ideological basis instead of practising what the various Acharyas have taught us?
I am unsure if this post has a "flow," but I just wanted an external opinion on the above.
Last edited:
