What makes one a Tamil Brahmin these days?

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sri Nara,

Why do you use the term Shudra which has disappeared from our vocabulary? It was used by our grand parents. Even at that time it was banned in my family. Non-Brahmin is the right word. Nothing personal. But I am deeply hurt that some one should use the term which is the equivalent of Nigger in U.S.

Thank you.

Having lived in USA for too long and before that in Delhi during teen years I always thought that everyone for most part are appropriately validated by their identity. I did not realize that the word such as Shudra is viewed as a deragatory term still and is not in our vocabulary anymore. Hence, I apologize for its usage in one of my posts elsewhere since the purpose of my posts are not to hurt anyone.

 

[kkumar29]

All this discussion about Brahman reminds me of an incidence long time ago. I had asked my father about this absolute truth all the religions talk about and the philosophies associated with it. He gave me the following answer. He said imagine there is an elephant standing in the forest. There are four blind men who stumble across the elephant. These men had never seen an elephant before. One man groped and found the elephant's trunk, another found the feet, the third one found the tail and the fourth one found the ears.

Each started describing the animal. The one who was touching the trunk said it is cylindrical, kind of thin, a bit rough but had a tip that was very smooth and soft. The second one who found the feet said, no no, it is cylindrical but very big and had four or five hard shells that were really tough. The third one said that the other two were wrong, though it was cylindrical and thin, but had an ending which was hairy and pointy like a brush. The fourth one laughed and said that all of you are wrong, it is nothing like a cylinder but it is flat with ridges on it and felt quite rough, and it lead to an orifice.

My father explained to me that all of them were right in there own way but they could not see/feel the complete elephant. Because each one had a big ego, they were unwilling to consider the other person's point of view and try and build a bigger picture. Similarly he said the religious philosophies touch one aspect/feature of the universal force and claim that their view is the absolute truth. He told me that I wouldn't know what brahman is till I see the real brahman and his advice to me was to take all views into account with the understanding that there will be some element of truth in all of them. He taught me to be open minded but more importantly be a good human being. He said rituals don't really matter, they are more social in nature and we follow them as part of a community.

This was the best பிரம்மோபதேசம் I could get and I have been following this ever since.

I hope this doesn't offend any one.

Regards,
K. Kumar.

 

[Nara]

....Why do you use the term Shudra which has disappeared from our vocabulary? It was used by our grand parents. Even at that time it was banned in my family. Non-Brahmin is the right word. Nothing personal. But I am deeply hurt that some one should use the term which is the equivalent of Nigger in U.S.

No Shri Nacchinarkiniyan, this is not a term that has gone out of vogue among Brahmins. It is very much alive.

Besides, I feel the attitude of Brahmins towards "Shudra", the continuing defense of Varna system, the barely covered supremacist feelings routinely expressed with impunity, etc., are much more hurtful than using the word "Shudra", in an academic sense, for the purpose of illustrating how hateful and hurtful the whole idea of trying to define who is a brahmin, is.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

With all due respect, today's use of the word 'Brahmin' does not and should not automatically invoke any other terms. In my opinion, 'Tamil Brahmin' is an identity of a person, born and reared in a particular culture, involving at one end, extreme orthodoxy and on the other end extreme progressiveness and all in between.

Just wishing away this identity would not make it disappear. It is a unique culture and as most people in this world wish for an identity, these words provide for that. There is nothing wrong with it.

I am a proud Indian American Tamil Brahmin. I am proud of my heritage. I don't need lecturing from others that just by saying so how it is being offensive - this type of thinking is the worst kind of political correctness, IMO.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

...... I don't need lecturing from others that just by saying so how it is being offensive - this type of thinking is the worst kind of political correctness, IMO.

Thanks for your opinion Shri KRS. FYI, my views are different. I did not give it as a lecture to you or to anyone else. I can't help it if you take it, even though you don't need it, as a lecture.

Same goes for PC. I feel this non-stop talk about who a brahmin is, and what Yudishtra said to the Yakahs, etc., etc., IMO, is totally baseless, unnecessary, unfounded superciliousness, and finally someone (i.e. me) saying "enough already" is not a call for PC.

Take it easy ....

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I know your views. I also know you think that the word 'Brahmin' should be wiped out. Fair enough.

But this constant pouncing on anyone who uses that word within a given context, in my opinion is tiresome.

You have done it again in your last post. You may be an intellectual giant who knows it all, but for the rest of us little humans, this word is an identity of who we are. I would ask you to at least be respectful of that sentiment, without ascribing labels to our way of thinking.

I appreciate your out of the box thinking. But that does not mean that it is alright for you to characterize any discussions that do not conform to your own ideas as 'waste of time', or 'baseless, unnecessary and supercilious'. May I remind you that all views are welcome here, without someone labeling such views as stupid?

Regards,
KRS

 

[tks]

KRS -

I learnt one more thing - The word Brahmin seemingly has many meta meanings associated with it. For some it invokes all that represents the ill of the society over the years it seems. That is unfortunate though I hope such sentiments become rare over time.

I also learnt one more thing! 'Holier than thou' sentiments are not restricted to those that carry Brahmin as an identity anymore - I find that amusing

TKS

 

[Nara]

... You may be an intellectual giant who knows it all, but for the rest of us little humans, this word is an identity of who we are.

Really dear Shri KRS, do you really think I am such an ass? Alright, let it be.

I would ask you to at least be respectful of that sentiment, without ascribing labels to our way of thinking.

I am not sure what you mean by "our way of thinking". Let me assure you, I am not trying to label anyone, my criticism is about the kind of thinking that makes one say things like, ""The Knower of Brahman is a Brahmana" or "Anybody engrossed in "Brahmam" always is Brahman."

If one is labeled as "Shudra", which the Brahmanas do to this day to anyone who is not a Brahmana by birth, why shouldn't the "Shudra" take offense when time and time again claims such as Brahmin is one who is satvic, honest, hardworking, pious, compassionate, etc. are made? Raising objections to such talk is not being disrespectful to anyone, I think.

I appreciate your out of the box thinking. But that does not mean that it is alright for you to characterize any discussions that do not conform to your own ideas as 'waste of time', or 'baseless, unnecessary and supercilious'. May I remind you that all views are welcome here, without someone labeling such views as stupid?

First of all, I have never labeled any idea as "stupid", you are putting words into my mouth.

I am very aware, and thankful too, that I am in no position to restrict anyone's right to talk about anything under the sky in this forum. The fact is, I for one will always side with more speech not less. As I have already noted, it is far better to air the ideas, however noxious they may be, instead of sweeping them under the rug. So I say to you, I welcome all ideas, stupid (not my word, yours) or not, but I would like to say what I think about those ideas without being accused that I am trying to shut those ideas out.

Dear Shri KRS, please note that I did not start this topic, I am only responding to what I consider supremacist view. I try to be very respectful of people who participate, but I don't think I am required to be respectful of ideas that I consider to be odious, do you? I know you take the liberty to criticize ideas that you view as abhorrent, why must not I?

Finally, Shri KRS, if you don't want me to voice my objections to such ideas, then you will have to ban me.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

Really dear Shri KRS, do you really think I am such an ass? Alright, let it be.


I am not sure what you mean by "our way of thinking". Let me assure you, I am not trying to label anyone, my criticism is about the kind of thinking that makes one say things like, ""The Knower of Brahman is a Brahmana" or "Anybody engrossed in "Brahmam" always is Brahman."

If one is labeled as "Shudra", which the Brahmanas do to this day to anyone who is not a Brahmana by birth, why shouldn't the "Shudra" take offense when time and time again claims such as Brahmin is one who is satvic, honest, hardworking, pious, compassionate, etc. are made? Raising objections to such talk is not being disrespectful to anyone, I think.


First of all, I have never labeled any idea as "stupid", you are putting words into my mouth.

I am very aware, and thankful too, that I am in no position to restrict anyone's right to talk about anything under the sky in this forum. The fact is, I for one will always side with more speech not less. As I have already noted, it is far better to air the ideas, however noxious they may be, instead of sweeping them under the rug. So I say to you, I welcome all ideas, stupid (not my word, yours) or not, but I would like to say what I think about those ideas without being accused that I am trying to shut those ideas out.

Dear Shri KRS, please note that I did not start this topic, I am only responding to what I consider supremacist view. I try to be very respectful of people who participate, but I don't think I am required to be respectful of ideas that I consider to be odious, do you? I know you take the liberty to criticize ideas that you view as abhorrent, why must not I?

Finally, Shri KRS, if you don't want me to voice my objections to such ideas, then you will have to ban me.

Cheers!

Nara -

I understand the objections you are raising. What I have to say may not change your long held views. But let me share my views for what it is worth.

The word Brahman has two meanings - one refers to a sense of identity often associated by birth. Due to long history of terrible actions of discriminations towards others by Brahmans and due to their self proclaimed and unearned attitudes of supremacy the term could evoke a meta meaning of all that is 'odious' in humans..

However the vedic descriptions and descriptions in Gita actually refer to qualities of a person. So it is possible to have a person who is Brahmin by birth but Vaisya by Guna, non-brahmin by bith but be a Guna-Brahmana. This is a vast vision and does not exclude anyone. There is no reason to get angry at the usage of word.

Besides for many of us the word refers to a cultural identity.

Given the dual meaning of the word based on context I hope there can be more understanding of each other.

One of the oldest Veda is Rig Veda where a passage is still recited routinely in many places even today. I am referring to Purushasuktham which does describe Iswara using the metaphor of the four castes prevailing =since that time . That vision is all inclusive.

Rather than attach a meta meaning to the word and wanting to eliminate the word , why not understand what the word is supposed to signify and deal with each other.

Let us hope that everyone we come across here are aspiring to be Guna-Brahmanas regarldess of what their identity is

TKS

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri tks, Greetings!

Thank you for your considered response.

First, I want to assure you that I do not sport a 'Holier than thou' sentiment. IMO, criticism of Brahminism does not mean I am holier than the next person. I am just presenting what I feel, no more, no less.

...However the vedic descriptions and descriptions in Gita actually refer to qualities of a person. So it is possible to have a person who is Brahmin by birth but Vaisya by Guna, non-brahmin by bith but be a Guna-Brahmana. This is a vast vision and does not exclude anyone. There is no reason to get angry at the usage of word.

Dear sir, I am not angry with any word at all, this is a discussion in which we are trying to sort out what is reasonable and what is not. Emotions like anger do not play a part, at least from my side.

IMO, the notion that Varna is guna-based and there is a guna-based Brahmin and a guna-based Shudra is borne out of Brahmin-centric thinking that triggers supremacist feelings, knowingly or unknowingly. If these texts, the vedas and BG were written by Shudras with the same mind-set as Bhramans, perhaps they would have written that those who work for others, upon whose labor others live called "Shudras", are at the top of the Varna order and so on.

My point is, there is no need for these terminologies that are by design or otherwise, ambiguous. Why have the same word Brahmana mean two different things, one in practice and one in theory? The only purpose this confusion serves is for Brahmanas to have it both ways.

There is an alternative vision where we have birth-neutral and gender-neutral terminology for one who is wise and compassionate. That view is presented by Thiruvalluvar. Why can't we adopt that view, one who is compassionate, honest, just, etc., is a sAnRon.

In our day-to-day life we come across these sAnRons often, we don't have to call them Guna-Brahmna, birth-Shudra or something convoluted like that. A simple wise, i.e. sanRon would do, no?

If one wants to use the term Brahmana only in a cultural context, then there is no need to posit upon this word a non-cultural meaning like Guna-Brahmana, etc.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

I appreciate your out of the box thinking. But that does not mean that it is alright for you to characterize any discussions that do not conform to your own ideas as 'waste of time', or 'baseless, unnecessary and supercilious'. May I remind you that all views are welcome here, without someone labeling such views as stupid?

Regards,
KRS

KRS,

with utmost respect, may i beseech you to re read nara. i don't ever recall him implying any one being 'stupid'.

it is simply not fair to discard nara's experienced based convictions, like a dirty handkerchief.

i think nara shows a passion for all that is narrow and hypocritical in our culture. to him it has come out of exposure on close quarters and experience of time.

i do not think most of us, have had that close a relationship with our jeers or periyavals or whatever.

epithets of any nature, i think, should be avoided. i seldom use the word, 'should' for many of my own pennings here & any of these can be termed objectionable or arrogant.

but hopefully, i have never epithetized anyone to a caricature as stupid, brilliant or fool. i think nara didn't either.

KRS i think it is an unfair call on your part.

thank you.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.KRS Sir,

Greetings. I wish you to express my views, respectfully, please. Sri.Nara was not talking ill of anyone. He only expressed his opinion about the whole thread per se, when he mentioned 'it was a waste of time'. I think, Sri.Nara is reasonable when he said that, since this same topic had been discussed/argued somany times. I, for one, did not see Sri.Nara as attacking any individual member's view nor restricting the flow of discussions.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

..
One of the oldest Veda is Rig Veda where a passage is still recited routinely in many places even today. I am referring to Purushasuktham which does describe Iswara using the metaphor of the four castes prevailing =since that time . That vision is all inclusive.


TKS

TKS,

i would confess that i do not know the antecedents nor practise nor chat purushasuktham.

my uncle used to do it diligently, and was always held in awe by the close family.

i was in another forum, and was exposed for the first time in my life, to what purushasuktham meant for each of the other NB classes. even more stunning, what it (not) meant for the dalits.

all i wish to say here, i would like to dispute your claim, that purushasuktham is 'inclusive'.

not sure, what your reaction might be, if the said suktham suggested that you (i mean the metaphorical you, and not the person) by virtue of your birth, is the equivalent of a waste product of vishnu.

we all need our dignity and an assurance, that our faith, God and society, respects us, for what we are. if thanks to our accident of birth, we are condemned to a placement of 'no win', or a stratified structure where we are shown what our 'position' is per the vedas, i am not so sure, that i would accept a spot close to the bottom, than to the supposed top, that you and I, by virtue of our birth and consequently our caste, can proclaim to be on top of the totem pole.

dignity.

every human wants it.

purshasuktham doles it out in ration time allowance - with the brahmins getting the lion's share. should i say that all of us here being tambrams, rejoice and whoop up 'jai purushasuktham' ?

i won't.

the others? i would leave it up to them.

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

In one of your postings above, you have said:
"They remind me of southern rednecks in the U.S. wanting to preserve their tradition with the display of the hateful symbols of Confederacy.

The bright light of knowledge is supposed to clear out these cobwebs, but these are well educated and that indeed is cause for despondence."

Tell me what this means, except that you are labeling 'them', as 'red necks' and on whom the 'bright light of knowledge' did not shine. Is this not euphemism for calling them stupid?

You know that I posted my remarks as a member and not as a Moderator (no red ink). So, your remark about me banning you, you and I know is just a wasted statement.

You can say whatever you want within the bounds of the rules of this Forum.

But legality is one thing and saying things rightly is another.

I feel that your reference that 'this is a waste of time' is condescending to a new member who, in all likelihood was only asking an innocent question.

I said 'we' in the sense that those of us who do not share your vision of Brahminism as total evil. I do not think that saying who is a Brahmin or quoting from the scriptures is based on any supremacy ideas. These thoughts are part of our culture and today have no relevance to the caste orientation.

Yet, this identity is the core of the belief in our community. At best you think that the term is evil and at worst you are dismissive of the idea.

If you have issues, you should have expressly addressed Sri tks Ji, instead of throwing out some generic comments about his and others postings.

As you know, I have respect for you. But, unfortunately, in my opinion, in your postings here, you seem high handed and unduly harsh.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri kunjuppu Ji and Sri Raghy Ji,

I appreciate your comments. But my conversation is with Professor Nara Ji - we are quite capable of communicating with each other directly.

My comments were not from the stand point of the Moderator. Thank you.

Regards,
KRS

 

[tks]

Dear Shri tks, Greetings!

Thank you for your considered response.

First, I want to assure you that I do not sport a 'Holier than thou' sentiment. IMO, criticism of Brahminism does not mean I am holier than the next person. I am just presenting what I feel, no more, no less.




Dear sir, I am not angry with any word at all, this is a discussion in which we are trying to sort out what is reasonable and what is not. Emotions like anger do not play a part, at least from my side.

IMO, the notion that Varna is guna-based and there is a guna-based Brahmin and a guna-based Shudra is borne out of Brahmin-centric thinking that triggers supremacist feelings, knowingly or unknowingly. If these texts, the vedas and BG were written by Shudras with the same mind-set as Bhramans, perhaps they would have written that those who work for others, upon whose labor others live called "Shudras", are at the top of the Varna order and so on.

My point is, there is no need for these terminologies that are by design or otherwise, ambiguous. Why have the same word Brahmana mean two different things, one in practice and one in theory? The only purpose this confusion serves is for Brahmanas to have it both ways.

There is an alternative vision where we have birth-neutral and gender-neutral terminology for one who is wise and compassionate. That view is presented by Thiruvalluvar. Why can't we adopt that view, one who is compassionate, honest, just, etc., is a sAnRon.

In our day-to-day life we come across these sAnRons often, we don't have to call them Guna-Brahmna, birth-Shudra or something convoluted like that. A simple wise, i.e. sanRon would do, no?

If one wants to use the term Brahmana only in a cultural context, then there is no need to posit upon this word a non-cultural meaning like Guna-Brahmana, etc.

Cheers!

Nara -



Greetings!



I am used to addressing by name without use of other wordssuch as Dear, Sri etc. Hope that is an acceptable style in this forum.



I understand that you want to discuss reasons and thatemotions do not actually play in the perspectives that you put forward. However I am not able to understand this. Why isit that you cannot understand that the word Brahmin is really a reference to acultural identity *these days* that millions hold regardless of what reasonthey used to arrive at their personal identity to be calling themselves aBrahmin. They are not going to change their identity and many I know also donot harbor age-old ill will towards those who may hold other identities. It seems to me if you are unable to accept aperson for the identity they hold, then in my view, no discussion in the realmof reason is possible.



First, I will agree to disagree with you on this since Iknow you will disagree with what anyone says on this at this point.



Second, Vedic vision and vision of Gita are description ofreality beyond what seem to appear at the surface. They are teachings subjectto understanding, analysis & enquiry and not preaching requiring an unverifiablebelief system. If you think that these are concoctions of some privileged Brahminsthen you have to describe what you have understood thus far and how you reachedthose conclusions. That is a rhetoricalstatement not requiring a response. It will be like saying Newton's law ofgravitation was concocted out of privilege that Newton enjoyed. When Einsteinarrives at the conclusion that space and time are not absolute quantity he didnot arrive at this because he happened to be a Jew and it was a way to asserthis supremacy over Germans. Again if you hold such views about Vedic literatureand Bhagavad Gita I don’t think discussions in the realm of reason is possiblein my view.



Third, Sanskrit is a root language for many of our Indian Languagesand even Tamil has been influenced by it. In Sanskrit every word always has profoundmeaning built into it.

I have once heard 21 lectures on just one verse of BhagavadGita. This is possible because many words carry profound meaning by the waythey have come up from their verbal roots. For example if one analyzes word such as 'Shanti' (Peace) one discoverswith the help of a qualified teacher the essence of Vedanta in that one word.Therefore it is not surprising how the word such as Brahmana came up. Thisheritage of Sanskrit is something that belongs to everyone since every languagein India has been influenced by Sanskrit. Again if the word Brahmin only brings up inyour mind ugly things of the past that some human beings did to others andcertainly not sanctioned by the verymeaning of the word then I will say that let us go back to roots of what theword meant. If that is not a reasonable request then I will agree to disagree.

It was a tongue in cheek comment on my part regarding ‘holierthan thou’ interpretation of your statements. My apologies if that was notright ..

Let me conclude by saying that I will not debate with you onthese points anymore.

If we ever meet Iwill ask how you like your tea or coffee and have fun discussions about otherthings ..



TKS

 

[happyhindu]

Second, Vedic vision and vision of Gita are description of reality beyond what seem to appear at the surface. They are teachings subject to understanding, analysis & enquiry and not preaching requiring an unverifiable belief system. If you think that these are concoctions of some privileged Brahmins then you have to describe what you have understood thus far and how you reached those conclusions.

[....]

I have once heard 21 lectures on just one verse of Bhagavad Gita. This is possible because many words carry profound meaning by the way they have come up from their verbal roots.

Dear Shri TKS,

Hope you do not mind me joining in this discusssion. Cudn't help writing this after seeing the post you have made to Shri Nara.

Since you have mentioned the "Vision of Gita" and "21 lectures on just one verse", I kindly request you to make your knowledge available to the members of this forum on what you have come across.

I have a very simple question to ask. It is on the Chapter 18 (verses 41-44) of the Gita which classify Varnas based on gunas. What would you think if the “Bhagavad Gita” was written this way?

18.41: brahmana-ksatriya-visam sudranam ca parantapa
karmani pravibhaktani svabhava-prabhavair gunaih
18.42: samo damas tapah hrdayasaucam ksantir arjavam eva ca
jnanam vijnanam astikyam shudra-karma svabhava-jam
18.43: sauryam tejo dhrtir daksyam yuddhe capy apalayanam
danam isvara-bhavas ca ksatram karma svabhava-jam
18.44: krsi-go-raksya-vanijyam vaisya-karma svabhava-jam
paricaryatmakam karma brahmanasyapi svabhava-jam

As you can note, in the above sentences, I have changed just 2 things to mean it this way (changes i made to the original are in blue):

1) Verse 18.42:
samo damas tapah hrdayasaucam ksantir arjavam eva ca
jnanam vijnanam astikyam shudra-karma svabhava-jam

Meaning of the words:
samah--peacefulness; damah--self-control; tapah--austerity; hrdayasaucam—purity of heart; ksantih--tolerance; arjavam--honesty; eva--certainly; ca--and; jnanam--knowledge; vijnanam--wisdom; astikyam--religiousness; shudra--(of a) shudra; karma--duty; svabhava-jam--born of his own nature.

Meaning of the verse:
Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity of heart, tolerance, honesty, wisdom, knowledge, and religiousness--these are the qualities by which the shudras work.

2) Verse 18.44:

krsi-go-raksya-vanijyam vaisya-karma svabhava-jam
paricaryatmakam karma brahmanasyapi svabhava-jam

Meaning of the words:
krsi--plowing; go--cows; raksya--protection; vanijyam--trade; vaisya--vaisya; karma--duty; svabhava-jam--born of his own nature; paricarya--service; atmakam--nature; karma--duty; bramanasya--of the brahmana; api--also; svabhava-jam--born of his own nature.

Meaning of the verse:
Farming, cow protection and business are the qualities of work for the Vaisyas, and for the Brahmanas there is labor and service to others.

Additionally, I would also be glad to receive feedback from readers on this. So everyone, please do ask this to teachers who teach the Bhagavad Gita, why the Gita was not written as above?

Please also ask the teachers this -- why do these 4 verses appear in the last chapter of Bhagavad Gita and that too towards the very end? That is, long after chapter 11 during which Krishna showed His vishwaroopam to Arjuna. After showing the Universal Form, what was the need for Krishna to go on to describe demoniac and divine qualities and mention varnas wrt gunas?

Btw, Was Krishna an Astika? Do the 4 vedas say so? Am really wondering why does "Bhagavad Gita" say that Astikyam is a quality of the brahmana? What happens if Krishna turns out to be a nastika Jain? Would you consider yourself a Tamil Jain then, instead of a Tamil Brahmin? What really makes one a brahmin sir ?? I kindly request you to please elaborate on what you yourself think.

Regards.

 

[tks]

TKS,

i would confess that i do not know the antecedents nor practise nor chat purushasuktham.

my uncle used to do it diligently, and was always held in awe by the close family.

i was in another forum, and was exposed for the first time in my life, to what purushasuktham meant for each of the other NB classes. even more stunning, what it (not) meant for the dalits.

all i wish to say here, i would like to dispute your claim, that purushasuktham is 'inclusive'.

not sure, what your reaction might be, if the said suktham suggested that you (i mean the metaphorical you, and not the person) by virtue of your birth, is the equivalent of a waste product of vishnu.

we all need our dignity and an assurance, that our faith, God and society, respects us, for what we are. if thanks to our accident of birth, we are condemned to a placement of 'no win', or a stratified structure where we are shown what our 'position' is per the vedas, i am not so sure, that i would accept a spot close to the bottom, than to the supposed top, that you and I, by virtue of our birth and consequently our caste, can proclaim to be on top of the totem pole.

dignity.

every human wants it.

purshasuktham doles it out in ration time allowance - with the brahmins getting the lion's share. should i say that all of us here being tambrams, rejoice and whoop up 'jai purushasuktham' ?

i won't.

the others? i would leave it up to them.

I just used an example of Purushasuktam. There are many qualified teachers and large amount of authentic web resources do exist. Some of what I learnt initially came from an American who was born and raised here but eventually became a sannyasi at rishikesh. He is a Sanskrit scholar and knows how to recognize a gem of teaching which only an outsider to India could do. By the narrow minded views of varnasrama I dont know what he would be considered. The vision vedas is vast and applies to all beings. It is hard to go into more details in a forum such as this on this and certainly not on this topic area. If you want to discuss more let me know and I will be happy to provide references.

TKS

 

[tks]

Dear Shri TKS,

Hope you do not mind me joining in this discusssion. Cudn't help writing this after seeing the post you have made to Shri Nara.

Since you have mentioned the "Vision of Gita" and "21 lectures on just one verse", I kindly request you to make your knowledge available to the members of this forum on what you have come across.

I have a very simple question to ask. It is on the Chapter 18 (verses 41-44) of the Gita which classify Varnas based on gunas. What would you think if the “Bhagavad Gita” was written this way?

18.41: brahmana-ksatriya-visam sudranam ca parantapa
karmani pravibhaktani svabhava-prabhavair gunaih
18.42: samo damas tapah hrdayasaucam ksantir arjavam eva ca
jnanam vijnanam astikyam shudra-karma svabhava-jam
18.43: sauryam tejo dhrtir daksyam yuddhe capy apalayanam
danam isvara-bhavas ca ksatram karma svabhava-jam
18.44: krsi-go-raksya-vanijyam vaisya-karma svabhava-jam
paricaryatmakam karma brahmanasyapi svabhava-jam

As you can note, in the above sentences, I have changed just 2 things to mean it this way (changes i made to the original are in blue):

1) Verse 18.42:
samo damas tapah hrdayasaucam ksantir arjavam eva ca
jnanam vijnanam astikyam shudra-karma svabhava-jam

Meaning of the words:
samah--peacefulness; damah--self-control; tapah--austerity; hrdayasaucam—purity of heart; ksantih--tolerance; arjavam--honesty; eva--certainly; ca--and; jnanam--knowledge; vijnanam--wisdom; astikyam--religiousness; shudra--(of a) shudra; karma--duty; svabhava-jam--born of his own nature.

Meaning of the verse:
Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity of heart, tolerance, honesty, wisdom, knowledge, and religiousness--these are the qualities by which the shudras work.

2) Verse 18.44:

krsi-go-raksya-vanijyam vaisya-karma svabhava-jam
paricaryatmakam karma brahmanasyapi svabhava-jam

Meaning of the words:
krsi--plowing; go--cows; raksya--protection; vanijyam--trade; vaisya--vaisya; karma--duty; svabhava-jam--born of his own nature; paricarya--service; atmakam--nature; karma--duty; bramanasya--of the brahmana; api--also; svabhava-jam--born of his own nature.

Meaning of the verse:
Farming, cow protection and business are the qualities of work for the Vaisyas, and for the Brahmanas there is labor and service to others.

Additionally, I would also be glad to receive feedback from readers on this. So everyone, please do ask this to teachers who teach the Bhagavad Gita, why the Gita was not written as above?

Please also ask the teachers this -- why do these 4 verses appear in the last chapter of Bhagavad Gita and that too towards the very end? That is, long after chapter 11 during which Krishna showed His vishwaroopam to Arjuna. After showing the Universal Form, what was the need for Krishna to go on to describe demoniac and divine qualities and mention varnas wrt gunas?

Btw, Was Krishna an Astika? Do the 4 vedas say so? Am really wondering why does "Bhagavad Gita" say that Astikyam is a quality of the brahmana? What happens if Krishna turns out to be a nastika Jain? Would you consider yourself a Tamil Jain then, instead of a Tamil Brahmin? What really makes one a brahmin sir ?? I kindly request you to please elaborate on what you yourself think.

Regards.

HappyHindu -


I have not earned the rights (Adhikara) to teach anyone orclaim expertise with my posts.

However, since youasked for my opinion I will provide but it has to be brief given the nature ofthe topic. Also in the general discussion forum of this kind, depth of analysis of verses is inappropriatein my view.

There is a reason why this is in Chapter 18 and that is notaccidental. There is a significant amount of infrastructure requiring manyyears of learning needed to make sure one can understand what is meant herefully without making excuses for the verses and without apparent contradictionswhile interpreting the meanings. In the absence of right context and preparationand when one views these verses with the lens of ill-effects of caste system asit had evolved it will make no sense why this is even talked about in Gita.

First these verses are agnostic to the organization of workforce in a society. Today in most of the world we do not have Varna based workforce. So I will address only whatapplies in today’s world in this briefresponse. I do not want to engage anymore on the details of the verses beyond what I share here based on myunderstanding.

These verses provide definitions and provide directions asto how a quality of person can be improved by appropriate actions. If a personhas predominantly Satvic Guna then the verse 18:42 tells without reference to aparticular Karma (work) what that person can do to grow. The intent is thateveryone should become a brahmana (and if you change the word here to Shudra)then the intent is that everyone should strive to become a Shudra. Since the growth is internal it specifies the*attitude* that is needed in doing a duty (karma) for someone who is endowed with Satvic Gunas.

Note that all human beings have aspects of Satva, Rajas andTamasic Gunas

If Tamasic Gunas is present in a person for most part, then thegrowth is achieved by doing service which involves lots of physical activity.

In today’s world we have people who call themselves Brahminsas their identity. They may or may not have the Satvic Gunas. If Tamasic Gunais predominant in them they are suggested to get employment where service is thefocus, physical activity involved and right attitude in rendering that serviceis required. This will lead to their self-growth.

I am not going to address in this brief response the interpretationof this set of verses when there was caste system in practice. Anyone that wants to learn more has all theneeded resources available. In my experience we have too many teachers that are unqualified(and I don’t consider myself a teacher in this regard). So choosing a qualifiedteacher in today’s world is very hard.
TKS

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

You seem to be allergic to even the use of the term brahmin. Firstly no one who writes here in support of the vision of the rishis, defend birth based caste system. Leave aside the caste system. Your idea of birth neutral and gender neutral treatment is not practical. You cannot assume that there are no differences on these counts when they do exist. Also different people have different talents. You need to take this in to account if you want to optimize the use of these talents. Also it is necessary to identify them, to enhance these capabilities.

The focus is on qualities and not on the people. Thus to be a brahmin you need to depend on your qualities. So what's wrong in extolling sublime qualities and using a term to describe the people who possess such qualities. But having said the above, I understand the birth based connotation the term brahmin has and I think it is your strongest reservation against the use of that term. Just like any other generalization it doesn't apply to every member of the group but if you believe in (1) that initially people became brahmins for their grasp of spiritual reality (2) the factor of heridity, then this group has the best claim of all to the possession of sublime qualities and that is a good generalization to hold.

It is also my strong view that brahmins should not let pragmatism come in the way of such qualities but practice pragmatism in a way that supports such qualities for the generalization to hold in the future.

 

[happyhindu]

HappyHindu -


I have not earned the rights (Adhikara) to teach anyone or claim expertise with my posts.

However, since youasked for my opinion I will provide but it has to be brief given the nature ofthe topic. Also in the general discussion forum of this kind, depth of analysis of verses is inappropriate in my view.

Dear Shri TKS,

None of us wish to have adhikara to teach anyone anything. We merely discuss things as we feel and exchange info as we come across.

There are quite a few threads on this forum where the depth of analysis is excellent. I do not know why you feel depth of analysis of verses is "inappropriate".

There is a reason why this is in Chapter 18 and that is not accidental. There is a significant amount of infrastructure requiring man yyears of learning needed to make sure one can understand what is meant herefully without making excuses for the verses and without apparent contradictions while interpreting the meanings. In the absence of right context and preparationand when one views these verses with the lens of ill-effects of caste system asit had evolved it will make no sense why this is even talked about in Gita.

Well, whatever the Gita says has been explained by many-many-many teachers. What 'orthodox' 'brahmins' take these verses to mean is also well known.

There is also the view that the Chapter 18 was a later day addition (interpolation) into the Bhagavad Gita. It looks more probable (to me) that poor Krishna never said those things about varnas-gunas or about astikyam being a necessary qualification of a brahmana.

If it were necessary to be an astika to be a brahmana, then quite a few sages would not qualify to be called brahmins. Like those of the Samkhya school which reject the concept of God.

First these verses are agnostic to the organization of workforce in a society. Today in most of the world we do not have Varna based workforce. So I will address only what applies in today’s world in this brief response. I do not want to engage anymore on the details of the verses beyond what I share here based on my understanding.

These verses provide definitions and provide directions asto how a quality of person can be improved by appropriate actions. If a person has predominantly Satvic Guna then the verse 18:42 tells without reference to a particular Karma (work) what that person can do to grow. The intent is that everyone should become a brahmana (and if you change the word here to Shudra) then the intent is that everyone should strive to become a Shudra. Since the growth is internal it specifies the*attitude* that is needed in doing a duty (karma) for someone who is endowed with Satvic Gunas.

Sir, are you saying that Satvic gunas are present only in "brahmanas"? And hence everyone should strive to become a brahmana?

Note that all human beings have aspects of Satva, Rajas and Tamasic Gunas

Sir, behavorial psycology, psychiatry, neurobiology of emotions, etc is all so well advanced today, and so has our understanding of "qualities". Then why would we still want to class people with a 3-fold division of Satva, Rajas and Tamas gunas?

If Tamasic Gunas is present in a person for most part, then thegrowth is achieved by doing service which involves lots of physical activity.

How do we measure how much tamasic gunas are present in a person "for most part"?

In today’s world we have people who call themselves Brahminsas their identity. They may or may not have the Satvic Gunas. If Tamasic Guna is predominant in them they are suggested to get employment where service is the focus, physical activity involved and right attitude in rendering that serviceis required. This will lead to their self-growth.

Sir, are you saying that the varna-guna based division is applicable in today's times? And if the present-day brahmins get involved in physical activity, will they start calling themselves shudras?

I am not going to address in this brief response the interpretation of this set of verses when there was caste system in practice. Anyone that wants to learn more has all the needed resources available. In my experience we have too many teachers that are unqualified (and I don’t consider myself a teacher in this regard). So choosing a qualified teacher in today’s world is very hard.
TKS

Shri TKS, true anyone who wants to learn more has all the available resources at hand today, thanks to the internet. All that apart, please do address the "interpretation of this set of verses where there was caste system in practice". Are you saying that during Krishna's time there was a jaati system in practice?

Regards.

 

[tks]

HappyHindu -

I started the original thread to get a sense on what made some people call themselves Tamil Brahmins these days since that is in the name of this forum. Please note that the title of this thread has the phrase 'these days' to acknowledge that there is evolution in the thinking about self identity of Tamil Brahmins. There has been many responses to this query and I am grateful for all that have responded to the questions. I think we have digressed from the original point of this thread when we want to have in-depth discussions of specific verses of Gita.

I understand that there are other threads of discussion elsewhere that go into depths of such verses. I am sure there are many that can engage with anyone that is interested in such discussions. My interest in these topics have to do with striving to achieve self growth and I do not think that such a purpose is well served by spending time on discussions of what a verse says in forum of this kind. I do not mean any disrespect to the forum members when I say this.

The reason I mentioned about qualifications and Adikara when I commented is because in today's world of information overload and 'lobby level' discussions it has become harder to find authentic teachers. One could pick up what an ignorant and self proclaiming 'orthodox brahmin' say in a forum such as this and it could be taken as 'gospel' leading to conclusion about what a text is trying to teach. Hence my disclaimer at the beginning of my response and wishing everyone that a serious aspirant wishing to learn shoud look for qualified teachers.

While a lobby level discussion is possible on any topic, in my view, it is not possible to get into any depths beyond some point at such a forum. This forum can serve as a provider of reference at best to expose visitors to vastness of ideas that are present in the membership.

Finally Gita and Vedas are not philosophies though that is how most people approach the topics of these texts. If these are not philosophies what are they? Oh well ..
That is purposefully left as a provocative statement for anyone that is interested to go and dig deeper. I do not plan to say more on this topic either.

Unlike Biblical religions, our traditions are not based on historical descriptions. Truths that are timeless do no need historical descriptions as validation. Whether Krishna was a historical figure or whether he was a figment of imagination of Vyasa to present the ideas of Gita is irrelevant to us. Therefore it is not relevant if chapter 18 was a latter day addition to Gita or not. The only thing that matters is if the ideas presented has merit and is consistent to furthering one's growth in the right direction.

Let us not confuse descriptions of Gunas or qualities used to describe a Brahmana with those that may hold that identity in these days or in the years past. It is a definition of a term.
Similarly being Astika and Nastika or whatever people may want to believe in has nothing to do with these qualities.

The descriptions of Gunas is but a model. Its purpose is in the context of teaching certain concepts and aid in self growth. It is intended to be for a subjective assessment and is not intended to be measured by others like a Doctor would using a thermometer.
Unless one is a serious aspirant to learn the reality (about themselves) these topics or models would make no sense to that person.

Peace,
TKS

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS,

Is this not euphemism for calling them stupid?

The short answer is N - O, no.

What I said was that bright light of knowledge has not cleared the supremacist feelings inherent in the answers given to a question like "who is considered a Brahmin". I have also explained why I think this way. It would be best to rebut my criticism instead of saying this affects the sensibilities of people or I am condescending or saying I am calling people stupid in an euphemistic way. I never said people who think this way are stupid, either directly or in an euphemistic way. The fact is, I think most of them are really very smart people.

The next point is about identity and heritage. Well if it is strictly identity, then, why this unending fascination regarding guna-brahmin, and that even a "Shudra" can be a guna-brahmin -- can't you see how patently condescending this is?

The very heritage of Brahmins is a symbol of caste oppression for millions of people, the same way confederate heritage is a symbol of racism for Black Americans. This is why talk of Brahmin heritage reminds me of the southern rednecks preoccupied with wanting to preserve confederate heritage. I don't see this as labeling in any way. If I say all Brahmins are like rednecks, then your accusation will have merit.

....You know that I posted my remarks as a member and not as a Moderator (no red ink). So, your remark about me banning you, you and I know is just a wasted statement.

I am quite satisfied with your general philosophy on moderation. Sometimes I disagreed with the tactics, I kept that to myself as I must, and that is of no consequence anyway. However, when I am engaged in an exchange with you, I as a regular member, am never sure when the dreaded knife that bleeds red ink will get unsheathed. When you remind me that all views are welcome here, I wonder, when did I say anything otherwise, and I get concerned, am I being warned, for what? I feel I have to be ever so vigilant, the burden you don't carry.

I feel that your reference that 'this is a waste of time' is condescending to a new member who, in all likelihood was only asking an innocent question.

I was a new member once, and I was put under quite a strict scrutiny, that too from an SM. I did not get discouraged. This time, the comment was from me, one who has failed to progress from the official designation of "Unknown quantity" even after more than two years and almost 2400 posts. So, I think you are exaggerating the effect of my feeble comments. Why should what I think of as waste of time matter to anyone?

Even so, I ask you Shri KRS, please read what I have written, it was not against any particular member, new or old. Let me also state that I came into this thread not to answer Shri tks's questions from his OP, but to comment on some of the answers given to his questions. So I don't see why I must have directed my comment to Shri tks.

I said 'we' in the sense that those of us who do not share your vision of Brahminism as total evil.

You are now bringing in another loaded term, "evil" and saying I associate it with the people who do not share my vision of Brahminism. It is true, and I have never concealed it, I do think Brahminism, in as much as it has varna system at its core, is vile and we all will be better off by turning our backs to it. But I certainly don't think those who do not share this view with me are "evil".

you seem high handed and unduly harsh.

Sorry, but don't you think I get this in equal measure or more from those who oppose my views? I think so. I welcome any rebuttal of the views I present, all I ask is not to indulge in personal attacks, which is what gets directed at me most of the time, even as recently as last week.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

.... But my conversation is with Professor Nara Ji - we are quite capable of communicating with each other directly.

Dear Shri KRS, I would like to acknowledge and express my appreciation to K and Raghy for sticking their neck out for me, and at the same time not give you a feeling that I am angling to form a clique against you. I do agree we can sort this thing out between the two of us, after all we are brothers in this journey.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

Okay, I accept your explanations. Somehow the tone seemed harsh to me. Hence my response.

I am against any discrimination against any one. But unfortunately, here we are, both you and I, born in to a particular culture, whose identity is Vadagalai Tam Brahm Iyengar for you and Smartha Tam Brahm Iyer for myself. But like you, I do not use my identity for anything - except to use it to understand myself better. Now you seem to have broken away from your lineage and the past, but for a whole lot of us, our lineage is a source of comfort. This is why, a term as Brahmin does not evoke any bad connotations.

Regarding my Moderation, I would hope that folks here, including you know that I do not act in haste. Several warnings are given before any drastic action is taken. As you know, I am always available via PM as well. So, no need to walk on eggshells!

On Moderation, I am always on the look out for any personal attacks. Most of the times, I catch those.

Regards,
KRS