What makes one a Tamil Brahmin these days?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I have long felt the need to question the so called special spirituality of the caste-brahmins.

Scan through the lifestyle of any orthodox caste-brahmin. You will not find any less materialism than the average Indian society. The same desire for saving money, building home, making use of good jobs or monetary benefits is there. Further the same problems, such as dowry existed until western education. Then there are the same dishum-dishum with brothers. The same kind of arguments with the parents.Whatever enlightened thinking seems to be there, is largely because of an exposure to western education.

If doing more puja and rituals is more spirituality then you are correct. But I dont see a point in comparison because so called non brahmins have not been taught these rituals and pujas. But still so many are talking about god and worshiping him sincerely. Some compose even poems in tamil, malayalam, marathi etc. We also have the tamil veda which has probably come from a non brahmin heritage. Yet if something can be called a veda the composer must be a brahmin?

There may have been more saints in this community in the past. But seriously so called non brahmins many of them are busy earning livelihood for their families. The enlightened ones among them use their free time to go deep into religion or atleast question practices. That is also being a devotee of god, is my view. There is a poem written by Rabindranath Tagore, where he asks the caste-brahmin wearing beads, to come out and start tilling the soil.

There is nothing specially spiritual about caste-brahmins, atleast that is true today.

I am personally not disputing the need for the term of a brahmin in our religion. I am not such an expert to analyze the flaws of such an idealistic concept. Anyway it is fairly clear that regular caste-brahmins just like others , no where strive for this ideal not even the orthodox pandit.

I only feel that a modern caste-brahmin does not have any special nature. If he can call himself a brahmin and aspire for some ideals then everyone else can do the same. But the question that we all must ask within our hearts, is how much real desire we have to live as a brahmin. Apart from a little activity and lots of show, do we really strive hard for such an ideal.

I dont blame us. We are working hard , we have built families. We have done some justification for some job. After retirement people have their worries their anxiety etc. It is not practical to show a single minded aspiration to an idealistic goal like being brahmin, when there are pending problems in the society. Only a person who leaves the family and goes to a jungle can do that.

Some here who stick to the context, say that all that they know is brahmin is a jathi and by virtue of being the child of somebody they belong to that jathi. Atleast that is good if truth is spoken . I have my doubts on how many are so innocent . I am not sure how many really dont care for any other meaning of the word brahmin. But I leave it to the individual.

This debate about brahmins needs to move away from the issues of caste , superiority etc. to that of whether such notions are of relevance and value to the present day and if so what needs to be done to extract that value? Just as the sign of a mature individual is to take a balanced view and not be unduly influenced by anything , the sign of a mature society is not to let any event whether in the past or present influence its direction in a regressive way.

If inequity of the past needs to be compensated by inequity in the present what sort of logic is that? Not only is the logic weird but you are also letting the past fester in the minds of the people. Instead why not be constructive and do away with any inequity and start with a fresh beginning?

In my view the concept of someone with spiritual qualities as a guide and advisor in the society is of immense benefit to it. If we eschew that path and let spiritually empty people have the say, then there needs to be no more proof for that short sightedness than the direction the world is already taking.

I think the world is at crossroads now. It can either heed to the advice of the wise and correct its course or carry on in its present path and meet its doom.

 

[sangom]

I have long felt the need to question the so called special spirituality of the caste-brahmins.

Scan through the lifestyle of any orthodox caste-brahmin. You will not find any less materialism than the average Indian society. The same desire for saving money, building home, making use of good jobs or monetary benefits is there. Further the same problems, such as dowry existed until western education. Then there are the same dishum-dishum with brothers. The same kind of arguments with the parents.Whatever enlightened thinking seems to be there, is largely because of an exposure to western education.

If doing more puja and rituals is more spirituality then you are correct. But I dont see a point in comparison because so called non brahmins have not been taught these rituals and pujas. But still so many are talking about god and worshiping him sincerely. Some compose even poems in tamil, malayalam, marathi etc. We also have the tamil veda which has probably come from a non brahmin heritage. Yet if something can be called a veda the composer must be a brahmin?

There may have been more saints in this community in the past. But seriously so called non brahmins many of them are busy earning livelihood for their families. The enlightened ones among them use their free time to go deep into religion or atleast question practices. That is also being a devotee of god, is my view. There is a poem written by Rabindranath Tagore, where he asks the caste-brahmin wearing beads, to come out and start tilling the soil.

There is nothing specially spiritual about caste-brahmins, atleast that is true today.

I am personally not disputing the need for the term of a brahmin in our religion. I am not such an expert to analyze the flaws of such an idealistic concept. Anyway it is fairly clear that regular caste-brahmins just like others , no where strive for this ideal not even the orthodox pandit.

I only feel that a modern caste-brahmin does not have any special nature. If he can call himself a brahmin and aspire for some ideals then everyone else can do the same. But the question that we all must ask within our hearts, is how much real desire we have to live as a brahmin. Apart from a little activity and lots of show, do we really strive hard for such an ideal.

I dont blame us. We are working hard , we have built families. We have done some justification for some job. After retirement people have their worries their anxiety etc. It is not practical to show a single minded aspiration to an idealistic goal like being brahmin, when there are pending problems in the society. Only a person who leaves the family and goes to a jungle can do that.

Some here who stick to the context, say that all that they know is brahmin is a jathi and by virtue of being the child of somebody they belong to that jathi. Atleast that is good if truth is spoken . I have my doubts on how many are so innocent . I am not sure how many really dont care for any other meaning of the word brahmin. But I leave it to the individual.

Shri Subbudu,

You have said that "the emperor is without clothes" and I appreciate that. The one point from your post #225 above which I would like to echo with all the force in my command is this:—
"Apart from little activity and lots of show, do we really strive hard for such an ideal. "

(I have removed a small "a"; kindly notice.)

Most appropriately said, Subbudu.

 

[sravna]

Shri Subbudu,

"Apart from little activity and lots of show, do we really strive hard for such an ideal. "

Dear Shri Sangom,

That exactly is what needs to be addressed. But the more difficult part is for that recognition as in your above statement to emerge. So the real point is brahmins should not abdicate their responsibilities and give up that ideal as an impossibility.

 

[zebra16]

No one who is hardworking or sincere needs to answer anything.

Please note this in case the rest of your post refers to brahmin-priests of temples, they do NOT have to answer anything. Manusmrithi does not call temple priests as brahmins. Please note this from this post :

Manu.3.152. Physicians, temple-priests ( देवलकान) , sellers of meat, and those who subsist by shop-keeping must be avoided at sacrifices offered to the gods and to the manes.

[My note: one thing is clear from this -- temple-priests were not responsible for creation of smrithis / social-segregation / caste-system].

To me it appears to be a stretch of inference as to whether vaidyas, temple-priests were considered brahmins by Manu by studying the list of invitees for devata or pitr karyas. Elsewhere in the manu smrithi it is also mentioned that elephant keepers and nakshatra soochis (meaning jyothishis or astrologers/astronomers) were also not to be invited. A cursory look at our scriptures would indicate that jyothishis were considered as brahmins.

Further the charioteer and chariot maker were not considered brahmins and even a casual glance at the vedas or puranas would indicate that they were a part of major ceremonies and Manu does not make a positive or negative reference of them in the invitee list.

Regards,

narayan

 

[happyhindu]

To me it appears to be a stretch of inference as to whether vaidyas, temple-priests were considered brahmins by Manu by studying the list of invitees for devata or pitr karyas. Elsewhere in the manu smrithi it is also mentioned that elephant keepers and nakshatra soochis (meaning jyothishis or astrologers/astronomers) were also not to be invited. A cursory look at our scriptures would indicate that jyothishis were considered as brahmins.

Further the charioteer and chariot maker were not considered brahmins and even a casual glance at the vedas or puranas would indicate that they were a part of major ceremonies and Manu does not make a positive or negative reference of them in the invitee list.

Regards,

narayan

Thankyou for the note Shri Narayan. Please can you let me know which scriptures mention the Jyotishis as brahmins (am sorry i have not read about jyotishis from the vedic pov). Also if Jyothishis are considered brahmins, wud that be sufficient reason by itself to consider the devalaykan (temple-priests) as brahmins?

So far it seems that idol worship is not there in the trayi-veda and this is what Dayanand Saraswati (the founder of Arya Samaj) also addressed (and proved in a debate with pundits at Kashi).

Whatever is idol worship is related to Atharvaveda, but the Atharvaveda was not recognised as a Veda by the Trayi-Veda group [Trayi-veda = those belonging to the vedas of Rig, Sama and Yajur]. Sthapatya Shastra Veda (temple architecture) is an Upaveda of Atharvaveda and hence was not recognised as a veda by the Trayi-veda group either.

Agamas and tantric traditions are also non-vedic. Therefore there is enough reason to beleive that Idol worship is non-vedic in origin. It is said that idol-worship was accepted as vedic only much later, that is after the literature of the atharvans became accepted as a veda (as atharva-veda) by the trayi-veda people. There is reason to believe that the merger of Atharva-veda with the Trayi-veda was probably not a peaceful one.

Srilanka retains the older structure till date. There the temple priests (including gurukkals) are not called brahmins till date (though some gurukkals have started using that term for themselves of late). There the temple-priests are called Devarala or Kapurala.

The Vedarala were also not called brahmins in Srilanka. Quite apparently, being learned in a Veda did not automatically mean a brahmin. It is quite apparent that the term brahmin was used for priests who specifically worshipped the Vedic Deities (of the Trayi-veda), not the non-vedic deities.

Those whom we worship as temple dieties are usually non-vedic, such as Shiva, Krishna, Durga, etc. Therefore it is not a surprise that Manu did not refer to temple-priests as brahmins. During Manu's time, possibly the merger between brahmanas of the trayi-veda and the 'priests' of the atharva-veda had not happened.

I also feel that temple-priests started claiming to be 'smarthas' only from the vijayanagar period. I shall write more on that (on a blog) later. For now it wud suffice to say that the problem is not with history; instead it is with how Shankara's hagiographers presented things.

Shankara's Hagiographers (SH) claim that Adi Shankara finished off kalamukhas, kapalikas, etc in debate. However we find Kalamukhas as mainstream priests even in the 12th century and beyond. The SH labelled that the ways of the kalamukhas, etc as "vamamarga'. The exteme oulier ends amongst them may be vamamargas, but the mainstream practices of kalamukhas, etc are nothing "vamamarga". Esp considering the gross practices such as purushamedha, ashvamedha, etc of the vedic religion that should be considered equally "vamamarga".

Added note: IMO the pulam, maRai, kELvi, vAzhmozhi of the Tholkappiyam and pArppAns involved in vELvi vETTal, etc are all refering to the Atharva-veda and its preists, who were not considered brahmins by the Trayi-Veda group. There is also reason to beleive that the Atharvaveda has links with what is considered 'Jain' today. But more on that later.

Regards.

 

[zebra16]

My answers in bold italics.

Thankyou for the note Shri Narayan. Please can you let me know which scriptures mention the Jyotishis as brahmins (am sorry i have not read about jyotishis from the vedic pov).

I think we mean different things by the term "scriptures". By scriptures in this case I meant puraNas (basically Narada PuraNa) and jyotish literature like Brihat Parasara Hora Shastra etc.

Please note that there is no mention of any planets or grahas etc. in any of the three vedas (you have already excluded atharva veda from trayee-veda, so I am not addressing that) except for nakshatra suktam. There is no mangal, shukra, brahaspathi etc. planets, nor chhaya grahas rahu-ketu, nor rashis mesha, vrishabha etc. Only sun and moon, (a star and a satellite in the present day knowledge) find mention in the vedas

To put it quite bluntly the term vedic-astrology is a fraud since there is no phalitha-jyotisha anywhere in vedas, nor are there weekdays like bhanuvasara, induvasara etc. These are all later day interpolations.

You might have noticed from Sri Sangom's postings (titled Let us familiarize ourselves with Rig Veda) that the mantras to the planetary Gods are borrowal from other suktas, clearly indicating that the Rig Veda-book compilation had closed before the knowledge of planets etc. arrived in India (probably through Greeks or yavanas)

So it would be asking too much for Sri Manu to make a mention of vedic(?) jyotish brahmins.

Also if Jyothishis are considered brahmins, wud that be sufficient reason by itself to consider the devalaykan (temple-priests) as brahmins?

Definitely not. What I meant to say was the list of invitees or expressed list of non-invitees was not caste based, therefore, one cannot arrive at a definite conclusion whether inclusion or exclusion meant such people were considered Brahmins or not.

Whatever is idol worship is related to Atharvaveda, but the Atharvaveda was not recognised as a Veda by the Trayi-Veda group [Trayi-veda = those belonging to the vedas of Rig, Sama and Yajur]. Sthapatya Shastra Veda (temple architecture) is an Upaveda of Atharvaveda and hence was not recognised as a veda by the Trayi-veda group either.

Agamas and tantric traditions are also non-vedic. Therefore there is enough reason to beleive that Idol worship is non-vedic in origin. It is said that idol-worship was accepted as vedic only much later, that is after the literature of the atharvans became accepted as a veda (as atharva-veda) by the trayi-veda people. There is reason to believe that the merger of Atharva-veda with the Trayi-veda was probably not a peaceful one.

I do not know how veda could have sanctioned "idol worship" after making an emphatic statement "na tasya prathima asti". In none of the vedic suktas do you find mention of physical features of the Devas or Deities or Gods and thus it can be safely concluded that the source of idol worship is not vedas.


The Vedarala were also not called brahmins in Srilanka. Quite apparently, being learned in a Veda did not automatically mean a brahmin. It is quite apparent that the term brahmin was used for priests who specifically worshipped the Vedic Deities (of the Trayi-veda), not the non-vedic deities.

I think you are laying oveer-emphasis on your inferences. It may also be that the vedarala has not learnt his shaka of veda completely (including its veda-angas etc.). According to my limited study and understanding worshipping of the trayi-vedic deities is only through "yajna" "samans" "suktams or rigs" only and nothing else. There is no question of puja or archana.

Those whom we worship as temple dieties are usually non-vedic, such as Shiva, Krishna, Durga, etc. Therefore it is not a surprise that Manu did not refer to temple-priests as brahmins. During Manu's time, possibly the merger between brahmanas of the trayi-veda and the 'priests' of the atharva-veda had not happened.

[I]I do not have any inputs to offer here.[/I]

I also feel that temple-priests started claiming to be 'smarthas' only from the vijayanagar period. I shall write more on that (on a blog) later.

The term "smarthas" refer to all those who follow smrithis like Manu, Yajnavalkya etc. for their code of conduct. I do not know about temple-priests starting to call themselves as "smarthas"

Herein lies a puzzle. Why did the "smarthas" start following smrithis (which are claimed to be based on vedas) and not follow vedas proper like "shrauthas"? Why the switch? At present I do not have the reason and my knowledge is incomplete. May be the original bunch of brahmins (viz. shrauthas) did not accept the new entrants as brahmins as such, may be the smarthas were not as diligent in the study of vedas and veda-angas as shrauthas or may be the smarthas were repelled by the vedic sacrifices of animals etc.

Even in today's times we find that smarthas learn a smattering of veda like purusha suktam, sri suktam, rudra-chamaka prashnam etc. but do not endeavour to study the whole veda


For now it wud suffice to say that the problem is not with history; instead it is with how Shankara's hagiographers presented things.

Shankara's Hagiographers (SH) claim that Adi Shankara finished off kalamukhas, kapalikas, etc in debate. However we find Kalamukhas as mainstream priests even in the 12th century and beyond.

I think there is a misconception of what is meant by defeat in debate here.

Let me give my understanding here. It may be wrong or full of holes. If so, let me know where I am wrong.[/I]

The stated position of the other school of philosophy was presented as purva paksha. If it were based on vedas, the argument was based on vedas as "pramana" and if it was not so, the debate was based on logic or tharka. The result arrived at was named "siddhantha". Only that stated position which was out-argued logically was thrown out and not the whole philosophy. It may have so happened that some of the followers of the philosophy who was defeated, chose to follow Sankaracharya and many continued to be the followers of the old philosophy.
[/I]
For eg. Sankaracharya argued only the "arthavada" concept and the dispenser of "adrshta phala" aspect with the purva mimamsa group and he accepted other concepts like apaureshya of veda etc. in toto.

So defeat in debate at the hands of the Sankaracharya did not necessarily culminate in elimination of the followers of a particular sect or its extinction.


The SH labelled that the ways of the kalamukhas, etc as "vamamarga'. The exteme oulier ends amongst them may be vamamargas, but the mainstream practices of kalamukhas, etc are nothing "vamamarga". Esp considering the gross practices such as purushamedha, ashvamedha, etc of the vedic religion that should be considered equally "vamamarga".

Contrary to public opinion there are many "dakshina marga" tantras or agama texts and not all tantras are "vaamamarga". Similarly Sankaracharya rejected only certain aspects of "sankhya and yoga" and did not throw out the entire thing lock, stock and barrel. In fact many brahmins or smarthas are practitioners of many "dakshina marga" or non-veda bahya (i.e. not opposed to vedas) tantras.
[/I]
I do not see the relevance of Sankara teachings to a vast majority of Smarthas. They are (or at least seem to be) totally immersed in rituals based either on puraNas or tantras including panchayatana pooja and have a reverence for Sankara as a rescuer of hinduism from the jainas, buddhists etc.




Regards.

Regards,

narayan

 

[Nara]

.....But reservations are not the right way of compensation for the past inequities and definitely not in the interest of the nation.

Dear sravna,
I was expecting you to say that you don't care one way or the other about the reservation system as it is about education that is completely about materialistic things, which, from what you have said so often, is of no value for you. You have also stated often that Brahmins only value spirituality and they don't care for materialism.

I now realize that you do value materialism when you feel it is being taken away as a means of compensating for what you see as "past inequities".

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear sravna,
I was expecting you to say that you don't care one way or the other about the reservation system as it is about education that is completely about materialistic things, which, from what you have said so often, is of no value for you. You have also stated often that Brahmins only value spirituality and they don't care for materialism.

I now realize that you do value materialism when you feel it is being taken away as a means of compensating for what you see as "past inequities".

Cheers!

Dear Dear Shri Nara,

Practice of Spirituality or materialism is about your philosophy of life whereas the purpose of education is to eke out a living. Unfortunately unlike earlier times these two things are divorced from each other. Also what I call materialism is a desire for physical comforts and wealth which you do not want to give up. In fact if you are in control of such desires and have a spiritual inclination, money in your hands is desirable. Greed for money is the real villain

 

[kunjuppu]

sravana,

re post #233, is it all not comparative?

everyone has their threshhold of contentment. to give you the benefit of doubt vis a vis nara/self, maybe yours is less. maybe you are just satisfied with thayir saadham 3 times a day and willing to feed the mosquitos.

i, for one would like the comfort of a/c, variety of food and so on.

anil ambani would consider his needs more.

then who is to judge, that i am holier than anil? i for one, will not dare take that route, for if i point my finger at anil, i have four fingers pointing back at me.

humility is a deadly tool too. mr micawber of david copperfield fame (created by charles dickens) was a cloying, sleazy and could not help proclaiming his modesty. in the end, he turned up a villain too, bereft of empathy, which makes even duryodhana a saint vis a vis karnan.

the vegetarians might prefer hitler to george dubya bush, for the latter revelled in shooting his own cows, and skinning and cutting them for his dinners. does that make hitler a better human being.

maybe we should have a patti manram about humility, and let us all compete to be judged as the most humble person in this forum.

i know for sure, yours truly will not even qualify. but then there are others....................

 

[sravna]

sravana,

re post #233, is it all not comparative?

everyone has their threshhold of contentment. to give you the benefit of doubt vis a vis nara/self, maybe yours is less. maybe you are just satisfied with thayir saadham 3 times a day and willing to feed the mosquitos.

i, for one would like the comfort of a/c, variety of food and so on.

anil ambani would consider his needs more.

then who is to judge, that i am holier than anil? i for one, will not dare take that route, for if i point my finger at anil, i have four fingers pointing back at me.

humility is a deadly tool too. mr micawber of david copperfield fame (created by charles dickens) was a cloying, sleazy and could not help proclaiming his modesty. in the end, he turned up a villain too, bereft of empathy, which makes even duryodhana a saint vis a vis karnan.

the vegetarians might prefer hitler to george dubya bush, for the latter revelled in shooting his own cows, and skinning and cutting them for his dinners. does that make hitler a better human being.

maybe we should have a patti manram about humility, and let us all compete to be judged as the most humble person in this forum.

i know for sure, yours truly will not even qualify. but then there are others....................

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

My yardstick for judging goodness or badness in a person is his extent of selfishness. If I say it is morally wrong to be selfish there would be at least a few protests I am sure. But why is it the so called rationalists find it hard to comprehend that morality is rationalism too , rationalism that certainly offers a logic free of self contradictions unlike rationalism which eschews morality. The problem is, there is some pseudo holiness that has got attached to it. All good qualities are derived if you begin to extend your vision beyond the self. More importantly you can experience the sort of mental peace that is unmatchable in any other way.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

My yardstick for judging goodness or badness in a person is his extent of selfishness. If I say it is morally wrong to be selfish there would be at least a few protests I am sure. But why is it the so called rationalists find it hard to comprehend that morality is rationalism too , rationalism that certainly offers a logic free of self contradictions unlike rationalism which eschews morality. The problem is, there is some pseudo holiness that has got attached to it. All good qualities are derived if you begin to extend your vision beyond the self. More importantly you can experience the sort of mental peace that is unmatchable in any other way.

I appreciate your ideas on spirituality. You are trying to develop this into an explainable concept. But there seems to be a mixing up of ideas.

Humility is important. Human being has different qualities, greed, selfishness, pride, anger etc. There may be a link between these qualities but they are not the same. Humility is the exact opposite of pride. There is no limit on the extent of goodness a person can have. If a person is not selfish as you said he can be called good. But he can be better by eliminating the other negative qualities. Different people are selfish about different things. I know brahmins who are particular that they share their food everyday with birds and animals. That is a good quality. Ask them to give a donation to an organization for another human - many of them run away from this. If we list such different possibilities in a human by and large most humans are equally selfish or good in their own ways. But pride is still there in the TB which is an additional burden.

The best way for brahmins to prove their distinct value to society is being proving it to the world that they are good , not by words but by deeds. Today the fact that brahmins are being called to explain is because the deeds dont match up to words. What brahmins were in the past will be explained only by the present. Clean up your present. quote statistics and everyone will keep quiet.

 

[happyhindu]

I think we mean different things by the term "scriptures". By scriptures in this case I meant puraNas (basically Narada PuraNa) and jyotish literature like Brihat Parasara Hora Shastra etc.

Please note that there is no mention of any planets or grahas etc. in any of the three vedas (you have already excluded atharva veda from trayee-veda, so I am not addressing that) except for nakshatra suktam. There is no mangal, shukra, brahaspathi etc. planets, nor chhaya grahas rahu-ketu, nor rashis mesha, vrishabha etc. Only sun and moon, (a star and a satellite in the present day knowledge) find mention in the vedas

To put it quite bluntly the term vedic-astrology is a fraud since there is no phalitha-jyotisha anywhere in vedas, nor are there weekdays like bhanuvasara, induvasara etc. These are all later day interpolations.

You might have noticed from Sri Sangom's postings (titled Let us familiarize ourselves with Rig Veda) that the mantras to the planetary Gods are borrowal from other suktas, clearly indicating that the Rig Veda-book compilation had closed before the knowledge of planets etc. arrived in India (probably through Greeks or yavanas)

So it would be asking too much for Sri Manu to make a mention of vedic(?) jyotish brahmins.

Shri Narayan,

I think this post is relevant wrt mention of nakshatrams and exclusion of atharva from trayi-veda: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-59.html#post73972

Wrt to atharva and/or its exclusion from trayi-veda these threads may interest you:
1) http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-traditions/5079-atharva-veda-samhita.html
2) http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/6183-atharava-veda-part-i.html

Definitely not. What I meant to say was the list of invitees or expressed list of non-invitees was not caste based, therefore, one cannot arrive at a definite conclusion whether inclusion or exclusion meant such people were considered Brahmins or not.

Sir from the dharmashastras of vashista, manu, apasthamba, etc so far it seems that everything (including invitees) was based on occupation or caste.

I do not know how veda could have sanctioned "idol worship" after making an emphatic statement "na tasya prathima asti". In none of the vedic suktas do you find mention of physical features of the Devas or Deities or Gods and thus it can be safely concluded that the source of idol worship is not vedas.

I agree. Idol worship is not there in the Rig, Yajur and Sama and hence is not considered vedic. When it comes to the atharva, it may be possible that atharva texts pertaining to idol worship were destroyed or never put into writing.

I think you are laying oveer-emphasis on your inferences. It may also be that the vedarala has not learnt his shaka of veda completely (including its veda-angas etc.). According to my limited study and understanding worshipping of the trayi-vedic deities is only through "yajna" "samans" "suktams or rigs" only and nothing else. There is no question of puja or archana.

Sir the term Vedarala refers to a man learned in the vedas. It is true that the vedarala in srilanka were not called brahmins. This i feel was because they did not belong to the trayi-veda group. Also the word "veda" need not mean "vedas as we know it". It could refer to some other "knowledge-body" that was destroyed or went into disuse.

The term "smarthas" refer to all those who follow smrithis like Manu, Yajnavalkya etc. for their code of conduct. I do not know about temple-priests starting to call themselves as "smarthas"

Herein lies a puzzle. Why did the "smarthas" start following smrithis (which are claimed to be based on vedas) and not follow vedas proper like "shrauthas"? Why the switch? At present I do not have the reason and my knowledge is incomplete. May be the original bunch of brahmins (viz. shrauthas) did not accept the new entrants as brahmins as such, may be the smarthas were not as diligent in the study of vedas and veda-angas as shrauthas or may be the smarthas were repelled by the vedic sacrifices of animals etc.

Even in today's times we find that smarthas learn a smattering of veda like purusha suktam, sri suktam, rudra-chamaka prashnam etc. but do not endeavour to study the whole veda

Sir, I feel there were no kingdoms following dharmashastras in south-india until vijayanagar happened. There were occupational divisions for which no one can blame brahmins. Because occupational divisions were created by the people for themselves, and was there even in the times when Tholkappiyam was written. However, strictly birth-based varna divisions, i feel, were enforced on people during the vijayanagar period. Before that i wonder if there were "smarthas" in southindia (that is "followers of smrithis"). As you say it is a puzzle to me also why wud smarthas claim to be followers of smrithis. Esp when there is so much more to be had by being Shrautas (from the ritual pov, the grihasutras wud complete the picture). So why "smarthas" as upholders of smrithis / dharmashastras.

I think there is a misconception of what is meant by defeat in debate here.

Let me give my understanding here. It may be wrong or full of holes. If so, let me know where I am wrong.[/I]

The stated position of the other school of philosophy was presented as purva paksha. If it were based on vedas, the argument was based on vedas as "pramana" and if it was not so, the debate was based on logic or tharka. The result arrived at was named "siddhantha". Only that stated position which was out-argued logically was thrown out and not the whole philosophy. It may have so happened that some of the followers of the philosophy who was defeated, chose to follow Sankaracharya and many continued to be the followers of the old philosophy.
[/I]
For eg. Sankaracharya argued only the "arthavada" concept and the dispenser of "adrshta phala" aspect with the purva mimamsa group and he accepted other concepts like apaureshya of veda etc. in toto.

So defeat in debate at the hands of the Sankaracharya did not necessarily culminate in elimination of the followers of a particular sect or its extinction.

Sir, from epigraphies it wud seem that Adi Shankara did not defeat the kalamukhas and kapalikas at all, nor could He effect reform in them. The kalamukhas and kapalikas seem to have flourished well under the kalachuris. It is quite possible that Shankara's hagiographers merely claimed that Shankara had defeated them.

Contrary to public opinion there are many "dakshina marga" tantras or agama texts and not all tantras are "vaamamarga". Similarly Sankaracharya rejected only certain aspects of "sankhya and yoga" and did not throw out the entire thing lock, stock and barrel. In fact many brahmins or smarthas are practitioners of many "dakshina marga" or non-veda bahya (i.e. not opposed to vedas) tantras.
[/I]
I do not see the relevance of Sankara teachings to a vast majority of Smarthas. They are (or at least seem to be) totally immersed in rituals based either on puraNas or tantras including panchayatana pooja and have a reverence for Sankara as a rescuer of hinduism from the j

Thanks sir. Am thinking changes were effected in various tantra margas to make it conform to 'vedic'. However, i feel the south indians had nothing to do with the dharmashastras. These are people with a history of being revered parpan priests and anthanar philosophers for 2000+ years. The Shivalingam of Gudimallam is dated to 200 BC. Thiruvenkata and EmperumaL were worshipped in Perumbanarrupadi around 2nd century AD. All these are cultural edifices created by ourselves for ourselves. Yet in the late-colonial times there was focus on dharmashastras....Sad really.

 

[sravna]

I appreciate your ideas on spirituality. You are trying to develop this into an explainable concept. But there seems to be a mixing up of ideas.

Humility is important. Human being has different qualities, greed, selfishness, pride, anger etc. There may be a link between these qualities but they are not the same. Humility is the exact opposite of pride. There is no limit on the extent of goodness a person can have. If a person is not selfish as you said he can be called good. But he can be better by eliminating the other negative qualities. Different people are selfish about different things. I know brahmins who are particular that they share their food everyday with birds and animals. That is a good quality. Ask them to give a donation to an organization for another human - many of them run away from this. If we list such different possibilities in a human by and large most humans are equally selfish or good in their own ways. But pride is still there in the TB which is an additional burden.

The best way for brahmins to prove their distinct value to society is being proving it to the world that they are good , not by words but by deeds. Today the fact that brahmins are being called to explain is because the deeds dont match up to words. What brahmins were in the past will be explained only by the present. Clean up your present. quote statistics and everyone will keep quiet.

Dear Shri Subbudu,

To me spirituality is closely tied to selflessness. Enlightenment being the realization that reality of self in the narrow sense of physical self is a illusory notion and the real self being that which is one with everything, shows this connection. Thus the nature and extent of selfishness you practice indicates how enlightened you really are. Brahmins being considered to possess minds to accomplish enlightenment should not surrender to the physical things. Their mind being their asset they should use it for the purpose they are meant to, being, taking the responsibility for harmony in society. The fact that brahmins have become oblivious of their own strength is indeed a concern.

 

[sravna]

What characterizes brahmins is the transcending of force. There are the other people who are characterized by force. Force is meant to hurt. These people are thus insensitive to others feelings. Force, selfishness , materailsm can be linked together with force as the weapon used by the selfish whose way of life is materialism. Those who think that they qualify as brahmins need to assume the responsibility of abating such forces, stop the rot in the society so that it can prosper.

 

[Nara]

.... the purpose of education is to eke out a living.

sravna, to eke out a living you don't need education in exclusively material fields in which Brahmins complain of problems of access. Only those inclined to materialism, as you call it, will crave after such fields of education and complain about the reservation system.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

After 240 posts and a lot of data flow in internet, may we say that "an abiding obsession about what makes one a real tabra, is the tell-tale sign of a true tabra

 

[sravna]

sravna, to eke out a living you don't need education in exclusively material fields in which Brahmins complain of problems of access. Only those inclined to materialism, as you call it, will crave after such fields of education and complain about the reservation system.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

Agreed. Brahmins are also after money and moving towards the general trend. Let us hope that they stop the inclination towards improving their own prosperity alone but strive for common welfare. But wanting to pursue one's field of interest has nothing to do with materialism and there are still people who would like to get education in a field solely because of their interest in it. Society should not deprive such people of education as they are capable of making good contributions to the society.

 

[Nara]

... But wanting to pursue one's field of interest has nothing to do with materialism and there are still people who would like to get education in a field solely because of their interest in it.

sravna, if what you are inferring is true is it not a great wonder that the fields with the greatest competition are the very ones with the greatest potential for material benefit? There is a master's program in University of Madras on Sri Vaishnavam and there is absolutely no competition to get admission into this program. Further, there is not any competition for B.A. in Literature or Sociology or anything that promotes a better understanding of human nature and welfare, but stiff competition for computer science or information systems that promise selfish material well being --not that there is anything wrong with that. When Brahmins, the ones you claim are spiritually inclined, complain about reservation system it is not about B.A., it is about B.E. and MBBS.

Be that as it may, let me submit to you, love and compassion for its own sake, like that of those for whom spirituality is just a delusion, is lot more praiseworthy. On the other hand, the ones who are supposed to be "spiritually" inclined, whose compassion is predicated upon something in return, such as moksha, are, in essence, engaged in no less a crass thing than plain barter.

For the so called spiritual people doing "Dharmam" i.e. philanthropy, is a bargain for some gain in return after they are dead. The compassion of the so called materialists for whom there is no life after death is much more praiseworthy and inspiring.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

sravna, if what you are inferring is true is it not a great wonder that the fields with the greatest competition are the very ones with the greatest potential for material benefit? There is a master's program in University of Madras on Sri Vaishnavam and there is absolutely no competition to get admission into this program. Further, there is not any competition for B.A. in Literature or Sociology or anything that promotes a better understanding of human nature and welfare, but stiff competition for computer science or information systems that promise selfish material well being --not that there is anything wrong with that. When Brahmins, the ones you claim are spiritually inclined, complain about reservation system it is not about B.A., it is about B.E. and MBBS.

Be that as it may, let me submit to you, love and compassion for its own sake, like that of those for whom spirituality is just a delusion, is lot more praiseworthy. On the other hand, the ones who are supposed to be "spiritually" inclined, whose compassion is predicated upon something in return, such as moksha, are, in essence, engaged in no less a crass thing than plain barter.

For the so called spiritual people doing "Dharmam" i.e. philanthropy, is a bargain for some gain in return after they are dead. The compassion of the so called materialists for whom there is no life after death is much more praiseworthy and inspiring.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

I do not want to trample on your belief that materialists can be compassionate. But moksha has nothing to do with barter. It is a state of mind when you can embrace all. Moving towards moksha is moving away from narrow mindedness.

 

[Nara]

...I do not want to trample on your belief that materialists can be compassionate.

Oh sravna, don't you see, what we see as compassionate, namely, feeding the hungry, taking care of the ill, all of this is purely materialistic. The so called "spiritual" compassion is strictly about what you "spiritual" guys call other worldly. There is nothing called compassion for the truly "spiritual" as it is not about body, which is purely material, but about the soul, one for which all one has is faith.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

sravna, if what you are inferring is true is it not a great wonder that the fields with the greatest competition are the very ones with the greatest potential for material benefit? There is a master's program in University of Madras on Sri Vaishnavam and there is absolutely no competition to get admission into this program. Further, there is not any competition for B.A. in Literature or Sociology or anything that promotes a better understanding of human nature and welfare, but stiff competition for computer science or information systems that promise selfish material well being --not that there is anything wrong with that. When Brahmins, the ones you claim are spiritually inclined, complain about reservation system it is not about B.A., it is about B.E. and MBBS.

Be that as it may, let me submit to you, love and compassion for its own sake, like that of those for whom spirituality is just a delusion, is lot more praiseworthy. On the other hand, the ones who are supposed to be "spiritually" inclined, whose compassion is predicated upon something in return, such as moksha, are, in essence, engaged in no less a crass thing than plain barter.

For the so called spiritual people doing "Dharmam" i.e. philanthropy, is a bargain for some gain in return after they are dead. The compassion of the so called materialists for whom there is no life after death is much more praiseworthy and inspiring.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

While I have (and cannot have) any objection to your trying to tell a thing or two to Sravna, I guess that he is so deeply into his own brand of "spirituality" - which by his own definition is to be measured by the dislike, distaste, abhorrence, etc., which one "shows" towards materialistic life. Hence it appears to my wooden intellect why we (you and I) cannot "show" extreme dislike for materialism in the same way that the famous Malayalam poet Kunchan Nambyar once reportedly said "I like this bitter taste" when the Maharaja just said for fun's sake that the "paayasam" that day was bitter.

We also may say that materialism is the most perverted, most despicable, etc., and that we abhor it (that way we will qualify for being truly "spiritual" brahmans) but then we can also add, whenever necessary, that we like such abhorrent, despicable things! Does this make sense?

Compassion of the spiritually enabled rishis etc., as seen from our Puranas, was also erratic and, to me, always with a certain materialistic purpose. Probably Shri Sravna holds that the spiritual bank balance may be used for materialistic purposes

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara, Shri Sangom,

If materialists start being compassionate then they cease being materialists. They qualify as spiritualists. These two are diametrically opposite in nature that both cannot possess the same characteristics. Both the terms carry a certain meaning and you cannot impose on it something which goes against that meaning One is the anti of the other. If one is selfish the other is not and if one goes after money the other does not. The differences are clearly demarcated.

 

[Nara]

....If materialists start being compassionate then they cease being materialists.

sravna, compassion -- a feeling of empathy/sympathy for the suffering of other beings -- is as material as it can get. It is about feeding the poor and taking care of the ill, all material stuff.

Further, compassion comes from the genes, the blind force that favors survival and procreation. For humans to survive and multiply cooperation and social living is essential. Therefore, the genes that evoke a need for cooperation and mutual concern gets naturally selected. This is the source of compassion and it is purely materialistic.

You may call this by any name you want, but the origin of the sweet fragrance of compassion is matter.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

sravna, compassion -- a feeling of empathy/sympathy for the suffering of other beings -- is as material as it can get. It is about feeding the poor and taking care of the ill, all material stuff.

Further, compassion comes from the genes, the blind force that favors survival and procreation. For humans to survive and multiply cooperation and social living is essential. Therefore, the genes that evoke a need for cooperation and mutual concern gets naturally selected. This is the source of compassion and it is purely materialistic.

You may call this by any name you want, but the origin of the sweet fragrance of compassion is matter.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

You see the matter whereas I see the soul. Why is it that matter need be the origin of any effect? In fact the function you are attributing to the genes require that genes know the importance of cooperation and probably are in fact cooperating to perform their function. This view favors a holistic functioning of body which is more of a spiritual model. Out of any synergy emerges a unified driving force and given the synergistic make up of the body, a soul could well be the real driving force of the body.

 

[Nara]

....You see the matter whereas I see the soul.

sravna, this is fine, what you see is your business. But it would be more persuasive if your admiration for spirituality is more than a mere pretense as evidenced by the fact that at every turn when a practical choice was to be made, the choice that promotes materialism is always made, and at every turn when it is simply talk, spirituality is venerated and materialism is derided.

thanks sravna, I will let you have the last word