What makes one a Tamil Brahmin these days?

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear tks,

I don't stand on formalities, so I have no problem dropping Shri, sir, etc., but I would like to retain "Dear" and probably "sir" occasionally for emphasis sometimes .

First, I would like to express my appreciation for the gentle way you are presenting your views, an aptitude I am yet to fathom.

I notice that you have simply ignored the points I had raised. I have already explained why I consider the notion that there is something called guna-brahmana which even a born-Shudra can achieve, is obnoxious to me. If you wish to comment on them I would welcome it.

I think it is problematic to base one's identity upon a caste into which one is born, even in these time when such caste identity serves no purpose. One does not need the caste identity to continue to enjoy TB cuisine, carnatic music, etc. What millions of people do is one thing, but how wise is it to continue to fashion one's identity within a caste that has earned a reputation for, here I use the same nasty word, superciliousness? They do and I can't do anything about it.

Your comparison of Vedas and BG to the science of Newton or Einstein, is, IMO, completely untenable. Scientists respect them, but do not revere them to the extent of making their words immutable truth.

Tamil and Sanskrit have influenced each other. According to Prof. Hart, a scholar in both Tamil and Sanskrit has said Sanskrit owes its very syntactical structure to Tamil. That there are esoteric meanings buried deep inside the words of the Vedas and BG which can be mined only by qualified acharays is common religious dogma. All religions say the same thing about their religious texts. For a common person, toiling in the fields, it makes no difference that the word Brahmana has deep meaning. The only Brahmana he knows is the one who gets to call சாமி.

You have said you are not going to debate me on these points. I respect your wish.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

..... 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. .

Dear sravna, we have so drastically different views on just about all the topics we discuss here that we are not going to agree on anything. But, the least we could do for each other is to understand what the other person is saying.

I have never said there are no differences by birth or gender, that would be absurd. Here is what I said in this regard:

"There is an alternative vision where we have birth-neutral and gender-neutral terminology for one who is wise and compassionate."
​

All this says is, wisdom, honesty, compassion, etc., can be defined in a gender and birth neutral way, without the use of any caste name, like Brahmin-guna.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

Tambrahm Rage

here is a hilarious look at our community through a different type of message. hope you enjoy.

 

[happyhindu]

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

Dear Shri TKS,

Thankyou for the note. I agree that I may have digressed on specific verses of the Gita. I did so because of your post # 34 wherein you mention the Gita wrt Gunas-Varnas and later elaborated your views in post # 41 (to which I made my first response). IMO before one tries to figure out what makes one a tambram “these days”, he must first know what used to make one a tambram in “those days”. To do that, he must be willing to find out how such a term as a 'brahmin' or a ‘tamil brahmin’ evolved and came into being in "those days".

Also, if one wishes to bring in scriptures wrt justification of gunas-varnas, he must also be willing to analyse it, for its historicity and its implications. Without doing that, it would not make any sense to justify any literature merely as a “model” or as a measurement of self-analysis; espcially when the intent of specific verses in a given literature was not that in the first place.

I do not agree with you that “it is not possible to get into any depths beyond some point at such a forum”. Perhaps you bring in the limitations / incapacity of the forum to refrain from further discussion. Whatever may be your reasons, I respect your decision not to continue with the discussion.

Regards.

 

[Yamaka]

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

Dear KRS Sir:

I have a question: Some members here objected to my using words like "Bleeding heart liberals" in another thread... they said this is like "labeling" people or "grouping" people according to their political ideology, which is exactly I intended to do.

Do you think that words like "Red Necks in the US" are the same as "Bleeding heart liberals"? Or not ?

It appears that for some (like Kunjappu Sir), they are not the same!

For me, both are the same, both must be allowed in this blog. Because, in a flow of expression of our pov, such adjectives are useful to convey our real intent in an EFFECTIVE way, I believe!

These words are not dirty words or vulgar in context... such words have been used in regular newspapers like NY Times, WSJ etc.

Can you please give your opinion as the Reader and as the Editor/Moderator?

Thanks

Regards

Yamaka

 

[tks]

Dear tks,

I don't stand on formalities, so I have no problem dropping Shri, sir, etc., but I would like to retain "Dear" and probably "sir" occasionally for emphasis sometimes .

First, I would like to express my appreciation for the gentle way you are presenting your views, an aptitude I am yet to fathom.

I notice that you have simply ignored the points I had raised. I have already explained why I consider the notion that there is something called guna-brahmana which even a born-Shudra can achieve, is obnoxious to me. If you wish to comment on them I would welcome it.

I think it is problematic to base one's identity upon a caste into which one is born, even in these time when such caste identity serves no purpose. One does not need the caste identity to continue to enjoy TB cuisine, carnatic music, etc. What millions of people do is one thing, but how wise is it to continue to fashion one's identity within a caste that has earned a reputation for, here I use the same nasty word, superciliousness? They do and I can't do anything about it.

Your comparison of Vedas and BG to the science of Newton or Einstein, is, IMO, completely untenable. Scientists respect them, but do not revere them to the extent of making their words immutable truth.

Tamil and Sanskrit have influenced each other. According to Prof. Hart, a scholar in both Tamil and Sanskrit has said Sanskrit owes its very syntactical structure to Tamil. That there are esoteric meanings buried deep inside the words of the Vedas and BG which can be mined only by qualified acharays is common religious dogma. All religions say the same thing about their religious texts. For a common person, toiling in the fields, it makes no difference that the word Brahmana has deep meaning. The only Brahmana he knows is the one who gets to call சாமி.

You have said you are not going to debate me on these points. I respect your wish.

Cheers!

Nara ji –

I rarely use Dear and if I have ever used it is reserved for someone very near and dear.

So I find it artificial to start with such an address. If I run into you in real life I might call Nara ji which seem respectful and fine to me!
I know many people use the word Sir and I appreciate the intent behind that use. I also from my minimal sampling that such a usage in the middle of discussion of a post is often before a person wants to put out a disagreement or controversial statement or an insult disguised as a friendly statement. So I will refrain from its use since I don’t feel it is authentic for me to use. But I accept whatever others do – it is their style and fine by me.

I don’t like to debate in some instances. They include when a person has made up their mind for whatever reason and there are no common goals requiring alignment. At other times I have refrained when I sense that one has an agenda which is different from my goals in participating in a discussion. I also think many of these discussions are for the benefit of my self-growth and if I don’t sense that to be the case I don’t like to engage.
Many years ago I attended a 14 week course on the principles taught by Dale Carnegie. Let me share a few items that are relevant here:

1. “When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion.”
2. “Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving.”
3. “The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.”

From my minimal browsing of various topics I have realized that some people here seem to thrive in Vidahnda-Vadham either with or without an agenda and certainly coming from a narrow perspective. Unless such persons see self-growth as a goal it may be pointless to argue on any points since it will only bring out the Vidhanda-Vadham aspects in me  However if I sense that a person is mature I have no problem in providing feedback or taking feedback since that is constructive.

Thanks for your kind words by the way.

I don’t want to keep repeating myself and thought let me make some points by an imaginary conversation between you, me, a person XYZ, ABC who may or may not resemble someone posting here (but I don’t have anyone specific in mind since I am primarily responding to you). I am responding only to provide a few clarification comments to your question and do not want to engage in arguments since your mind may have been made up in some areas.

A conversation/ meeting imagined in my mind 
Nara1 is someone like you in the conversation below.

TKS : hello Nara1 ji

Nara1: hello TKS, I notice that you have simply ignored the points I had raised. I have already explained why I consider the notion that there is something called guna-brahmana which even a born-Shudra can achieve, is obnoxious to me. If you wish to comment on them I would welcome it.

TKS: I have indirectly answered this a few times earlier in my posts. Let me make one more attempt. Let us take the word Justice. It is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics. It also used as a title for a Supreme Court Justice. It also defined a role/action and duty. The reason it is used as a title is because you expect a person in that role to act as a personification of Justice notwithstanding their person prejudices. The word Brahmin is something like this word.

Nara1: I find the word Brahmin absolutely vile, we need to abolish from our vocabulary. I can’t understand why someone would call themselves Brahmin which has a caste connotation in this day and age. Don’t they feel sick knowing that this represents all that is bad in our heritage and in our society

TKS: Nara1 ji – Let me continue with my analogy. Let us say some of these Justices turned out to be major crooks who have done untold misery to society. You might say that the very word Justice has to be abolished. Meanwhile new crops of Justices have come into positions and they are striving to be embodiment of what the title actually means. Also without appropriate satva guna and viveka people cannot achieve this role. It takes a person of high character to become a Justice and live that life consistent with such a name. If that is true we can certainly call them ‘Your Honor, Justice’ since they have earned this distinction…

Nara1: Your analogy fails because these Justices were not born into a family to be automatically given that privilege

TKS: You are right, there. However the analogy holds if you were to insist that the world Justice be abolished from the dictionary across the world because of few scoundrels who abused their authority over time. Besides there are many that lead a life consistent with the meaning of the term Justice. Any aspiring person should strive to be a Justice since it represents all that is best in a person in rendering justice.

Nara1: That is vile and obnoxious – you want people to aspire to be like those crooks and scoundrels. The very word Justice makes me remember about all the vile things that those crooks did .. Word, designations have to be changed to something neutral describing what they do like Court Manager ..

XYZ (silent until now) – Sir – Nara1 .. why do you always filibuster every discussion with the same view point. You have to recognize that there are many Justices that are not crooks. You have unresolved anger based on what you may have experienced or witnessed and are going around denigrating the term Justice every time an opportunity presents without ever listening to anything that is said

Nara 1: I am only providing a reasoned response.. Why do you see that filibustering? That is uncalled for. I am not denigrating anyone. I am pointing how we can evolve to be a compassionate and understanding society by getting rid the word Justice entirely from our vocabulary

XYZ – There you again, Sir

Nara 1: Let us get back to my original question about Brahmin term. It represents everything that is vile in our society

TKS: Nara1 ji – the issue unfortunately is in your mind and you are seeking a solution outside. You may be stuck in the past history while a new crop of children have come up thinking Brahmin as an identity like any other identity someone may have like Italian Americans. They have no sense of superiority and they do even know what it means to be a Brahmin as the word implies. But they love and accept others, proud of their names and their family heritage. They are not responsible for the cruel acts of their ancestors. They are open minded and accepting of others regardless of their role. So the word has two meanings – an expectation and character as defined by Sanskrit verbal roots and a term to signify an identity. They will never change their identity just like you are not going to change your name even if they caught a murderer who is called by your name. The issue is in your heart that you can only relate to the vile things when the term is used to refer to someone. What I say is that you are wearing a glass and the lens has to be changed so that you can see the world as it is now. The glasses you wear might have worked in another place and time but not everywhere. So the answer is not that others have to change but that you have to change your glasses to get back your 20-20 vision

ABC – joining the conversation: Sir, what you hold is a prejudice. You want others to change so that you can carry on with your vile definitions that do not have reality in today’s world in most places . By carrying on with your definitions and with your repeated use you are putting down a vast majority of people. You prejudge what they might be simply because they happen to be born in a family where this identity was given to them for their family. You want them to change their identity simply because you hold a preconceived notion on what their identity represents to you .

Nara 1: That is a strong statement and unreasonable one at that. What do you think about confederate flag and symbolism it represents? The term Brahmin represent vile nature of human beings.

TKS: Unlike the confederate flag which was born during times of slavery and severe oppression of blacks in USA, the word Brahmin had all inclusive expectations and suitable only for people endowed with Satva Guna. The people that used this term as an identity over the years have disgraced the term. However we are past that era and many relate to the all-inclusive symbolism that it always represented. The word was not born out of oppression.

Nara 1- Brahmin word is vile and needs to be removed from usage. We can enjoy all aspects of lifestyle without using the word. It represents all that is bad and has to be removed from our use

TKS: Nara1 ji – what places have you visited recently? I have a vacation coming up to visit your area. Do suggest some nice places I can visit …Best Regards

Nara 1: I know you don’t want to debate this anymore and I respect your wish - Cheers


TKS : Cheers

 

[tks]

Dear Shri TKS,

Thankyou for the note. I agree that I may have digressed on specific verses of the Gita. I did so because of your post # 34 wherein you mention the Gita wrt Gunas-Varnas and later elaborated your views in post # 41 (to which I made my first response). IMO before one tries to figure out what makes one a tambram “these days”, he must first know what used to make one a tambram in “those days”. To do that, he must be willing to find out how such a term as a 'brahmin' or a ‘tamil brahmin’ evolved and came into being in "those days".

Also, if one wishes to bring in scriptures wrt justification of gunas-varnas, he must also be willing to analyse it, for its historicity and its implications. Without doing that, it would not make any sense to justify any literature merely as a “model” or as a measurement of self-analysis; espcially when the intent of specific verses in a given literature was not that in the first place.

I do not agree with you that “it is not possible to get into any depths beyond some point at such a forum”. Perhaps you bring in the limitations / incapacity of the forum to refrain from further discussion. Whatever may be your reasons, I respect your decision not to continue with the discussion.

Regards.

HappyHindu -

I think your original question on the verse was on the mark since I did make references and you asked for clarification. I did respond and shared my understanding. Beyond that 'lobby level' response I think discussion can only serve meaningful purpose if we are together in a goal of learning with Shradha. Therefore I did not want to engage further since my goal is not to change anyone.

After being a skeptic about much of Vedic knowledge I have come to appreciate the profundity and vastness of the vision. So it would be disprespectful to the study to engage in careless discussion in a forum from my point. I am not suggesting that you are engaged here in a careless manner. Hope you understand

TKS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Yamaka Ji,

Labeling someone in particular with an intent to hurt is what is not allowed here. I specifically, added this as a rule of the forum only about a couple of months ago. As you might have noticed, there are distinct philosophical camps out here, who had started using the label to hurl invectives.

General use of the term is fine as long as it is not aimed at one of our members. This is why, I have not edited out any such references by you.

Also, the general rule is that if someone thinks that the label is aimed at him/her indirectly and that person complains, I usually encourage the poster to either modify or withdraw the offending words. The key here again is that we do not want any of our members to feel hurt. However, this is based on judgement of the Moderator (it is not a scientific job ), and sometimes one sees folks who use this to shut out valid discussions.

What Sri Kunjuppu Ji commented was his own opinion about your use of a particular expression, although it was well within the norms of the Forum guidelines and rules.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS Sir:

I have a question: Some members here objected to my using words like "Bleeding heart liberals" in another thread... they said this is like "labeling" people or "grouping" people according to their political ideology, which is exactly I intended to do.

Do you think that words like "Red Necks in the US" are the same as "Bleeding heart liberals"? Or not ?

It appears that for some (like Kunjappu Sir), they are not the same!

For me, both are the same, both must be allowed in this blog. Because, in a flow of expression of our pov, such adjectives are useful to convey our real intent in an EFFECTIVE way, I believe!

These words are not dirty words or vulgar in context... such words have been used in regular newspapers like NY Times, WSJ etc.

Can you please give your opinion as the Reader and as the Editor/Moderator?

Thanks

Regards

Yamaka

 

[happyhindu]

HappyHindu -

I think your original question on the verse was on the mark since I did make references and you asked for clarification. I did respond and shared my understanding. Beyond that 'lobby level' response I think discussion can only serve meaningful purpose if we are together in a goal of learning with Shradha. Therefore I did not want to engage further since my goal is not to change anyone.

After being a skeptic about much of Vedic knowledge I have come to appreciate the profundity and vastness of the vision. So it would be disprespectful to the study to engage in careless discussion in a forum from my point. I am not suggesting that you are engaged here in a careless manner. Hope you understand

TKS

Shri TKS,

Ofcourse i understand your goal is not to change anyone. Neither is mine. Please treat this as a chatroom or if you will, as a satsang. I treat all forums as a new age place to learn. Hanging out on different forums, understanding different views, exhanging info, and sometimes researching things together is all in all at times better than any classroom i feel.

To me Shraddha merely translates to "willingness to learn without a bias". Sometimes my readings take me into a mental conflict zone. There are many times i decide i will not read any further; but each time after i lay off i seem to go back to the same texts after a cool-off period. So until the curiosity exists, the reading too will go on i suppose.

Profoundity and vastness of vision are not limited to indian liteature alone, i feel. There are beliefs across the world, whose concepts are very profound, though as literature they may not stand out as extraordinary compositions.

In your response to Shri Nara above (post # 56) you have actually typed out an imagined conversation. I don't understand what such kind of 'lobby-level' talk would mean to you, especially when you say you do not wish to indulge in anything more than a lobby-level discussion.

I suppose, it would depend on each individual if s/he wishes to go a few steps beyond 'lobby-level' talk. If you feel reticent to take a few steps ahead, i leave at that.

Best wishes and thankyou for your time.

Regards.

 

[sangom]

The word 'brahmana' representing a social classification, side by side with other social classifications 'raajanya', 'vaisya' and 'sudra', appears for the first time in the Purushasukta (PS), in the X mandala of the rigveda. This mandala or book is a late book and the said sukta, an interpolation in that late book, according to scholars. (I can say one thing; even for an ordinary person like me the language style of PS appears very different from that of books 1,3, etc., and more in line with Panini's reformed "samskruta" language than with the vedic language which was less straitjacket.)

Before this PS, the word "brahman" did not even signify the latter day Parabrahmam of Adisankara, but to one of the sacrificial priests whose duty was to supervise the whole proceedings of the usually elaborate and highly intricate yajnas.

Today when the tabra-in- the-street (TTS for short) in TN / Kerala, says "I am a brahmanan" I usually sense two ideas simultaneously in the back of his heart; one a mere label in the contemporary society in which government policies take "caste" as a deciding factor in many cases, and brahmanas are kept out, and two, a feeling of having been - at least once upon a time not very long ago, the apex citizen in this land enjoying very great respect, reverence, etc., (merely because of that label, is the fact, but in the majority of cases, I feel this is conveniently pushed aside and, the qualities which ought to have been there for deserving such respect and reverence from other social classes is presumed to be inherited by the said TTS also as a matter of genetic quality passed down through the generations.

Coming to the presumed "guna brahmana" unless it is proved that PS was interpolated into the rigveda contemporaneously with the verses 18-41 to 44 of BG, we are forced to conclude that there was a time lapse of at least one or two centuries during which it might have become necessary to extol brahmanas in comparison with the other three castes. Why? IMHO, most probably because brahmanas in general did not measure up to those rigorous standards even in those days and somebody thought that the message is best delivered through the mouth of Krishna, who, by that time had been elevated to the supreme godhead in human form, in common perception.

I therefore feel that BG 18-41 to 44 should remind 'brahmans by birth' of the additional qualifications they have yet to acquire before deserving the epithet of brahmana, rather than the easy way of getting the sacred thread through a rite and ipso facto claiming all the credit of a true brahmana. Perhaps we should bring in a reform so that only those children (from all castes) who exhibit the nascent signs of a TRUE brahmana as described in BG 18-41-a, will be eligible (but not compulsory for them) for upanayanam, and the rest, even if born to brahmana parents will be disqualified. Any takers?

 

[happyhindu]

Perhaps we should bring in a reform so that only those children (from all castes) who exhibit the nascent signs of a TRUE brahmana as described in BG 18-41-a, will be eligible (but not compulsory for them) for upanayanam, and the rest, even if born to brahmana parents will be disqualified. Any takers?

Dear Sir,

This wud be nothing short of a social revolution. Am curious to see if there are any takers.

All the same, am somewhat still baffled by the term "caste", and also wondering how do people claim to constitute any "caste" (that is jaati as described in dharmashastras).

In Southindia, farmers have become princes, and trade guilds (made up of people from diverse backgrounds) have become "communities". Those involving in tantra vidhis have become 'brahmins', and even claim to have descended from vedic sages.

Going back into time, the landscape was doted with warring tribes, so i suppose everyone was first a 'kshatriya'. All the same, am somewhat unsure how one would deal with children who change over time; despite what nascent signs they show.

Lets say a boy at 9 shows some interest in spiritual matters as compared to a boy who shows interest only in gaming stuff. At age 30, this may be reversed. The boy interested in gaming may turn out to be very spiritual, and the boy who initially showed interest in spirituality may turn out to be corrupt businessman despite the thread across his torso.

I feel the better way to go about it is to allow all children access to all forms of studies (vedas included). If a child is interested he will flower in a specific topic / field himself and may even choose it as his lifelong vocation.

Any takers?

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir,

This wud be nothing short of a social revolution. Am curious to see if there are any takers.

All the same, am somewhat still baffled by the term "caste", and also wondering how do people claim to constitute any "caste" (that is jaati as described in dharmashastras).

In Southindia, farmers have become princes, and trade guilds (made up of people from diverse backgrounds) have become "communities". Those involving in tantra vidhis have become 'brahmins', and even claim to have descended from vedic sages.

Going back into time, the landscape was doted with warring tribes, so i suppose everyone was first a 'kshatriya'. All the same, am somewhat unsure how one would deal with children who change over time; despite what nascent signs they show.

Lets say a boy at 9 shows some interest in spiritual matters as compared to a boy who shows interest only in gaming stuff. At age 30, this may be reversed. The boy interested in gaming may turn out to be very spiritual, and the boy who initially showed interest in spirituality may turn out to be corrupt businessman despite the thread across his torso.

I feel the better way to go about it is to allow all children access to all forms of studies (vedas included). If a child is interested he will flower in a specific topic / field himself and may even choose it as his lifelong vocation.

Any takers?

Even in the system suggested by you it may happen that a youngster who opts for spiritual studies like religion and philosophy, may subsequently lose interest and take up business. So, just like driving licence today, there should be a licence to be a brahmana and be known as such and this licence should be got renewed periodically after satisfying a jury. Any one not having a valid "brahmana licence" should not be considered as brahmana. Because the learning of vedas, rituals, etc., takes more years than perhaps engg. or medicine, it is better to make the selection at about 10 years of age IMO.

 

[happyhindu]

Even in the system suggested by you it may happen that a youngster who opts for spiritual studies like religion and philosophy, may subsequently lose interest and take up business. So, just like driving licence today, there should be a licence to be a brahmana and be known as such and this licence should be got renewed periodically after satisfying a jury. Any one not having a valid "brahmana licence" should not be considered as brahmana. Because the learning of vedas, rituals, etc., takes more years than perhaps engg. or medicine, it is better to make the selection at about 10 years of age IMO.

So true sir. Anyone can change. Licence like the ones doctors have?? like they need to go for Continuing Medical Education (CME) in order to renew their licence. Wonder if that is tenable. If it can be made possible, i suppose the only diff wud be that such a CME-type of licence will apply to priests. Naturally it cannot apply to the sadhus of various akhadas who take on various rigours of meditatation to realise brahman.

 

[kunjuppu]

Dear KRS Sir:

I have a question: Some members here objected to my using words like "Bleeding heart liberals" in another thread... they said this is like "labeling" people or "grouping" people according to their political ideology, which is exactly I intended to do.

Do you think that words like "Red Necks in the US" are the same as "Bleeding heart liberals"? Or not ?

It appears that for some (like Kunjappu Sir), they are not the same!

For me, both are the same, both must be allowed in this blog. Because, in a flow of expression of our pov, such adjectives are useful to convey our real intent in an EFFECTIVE way, I believe!

These words are not dirty words or vulgar in context... such words have been used in regular newspapers like NY Times, WSJ etc.

Can you please give your opinion as the Reader and as the Editor/Moderator?

Thanks

Regards

Yamaka

dear yamaka,

thank you for bringing to notice my inconsistencies.

i think there are some of us, who are capable of expressing ourselves right to the tip of the pointed arguement that we wish to raise by elaborating the english language, without resorting to epithets.

i consider these ones gifted with superior communications skills and mastery of the english language. sir, i have added you in this crowd and figured, had you stopped for a second, you could have worded your views more masterfully, avoid such phrases as 'bleeding heart liberals' and such.

it was more a tribute to your prowess of expression, and my initial take on you, that perhaps i felt comfortable in chiding you.

but, per the rules of the forum, as KRS says, use epithets as you please

thank you.

 

[Nara]

.....XYZ (silent until now) – Sir – Nara1 .. why do you always filibuster every discussion with the same view point. You have to recognize that there are many Justices that are not crooks. You have unresolved anger based on what you may have experienced or witnessed and are going around denigrating the term Justice every time an opportunity presents without ever listening to anything that is said

tks, I am used to have arguments turn into name calling, some do it openly, others do it in a subtle way like you have done. You know, I can also make an imaginary conversation and make your arguments into a caricature, and you into someone adamantly sticking to your position -- filibustering -- but I won't. While Justices and crooks among justices are widely accepted reality, there is no such things as Brahmana and Guna-Brahmana that is accepted across the board.

Once again, my criticisms go unanswered, but then, I am used to that here.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

Shri TKS,

Ofcourse i understand your goal is not to change anyone. Neither is mine. Please treat this as a chatroom or if you will, as a satsang. I treat all forums as a new age place to learn. Hanging out on different forums, understanding different views, exhanging info, and sometimes researching things together is all in all at times better than any classroom i feel.

To me Shraddha merely translates to "willingness to learn without a bias". Sometimes my readings take me into a mental conflict zone. There are many times i decide i will not read any further; but each time after i lay off i seem to go back to the same texts after a cool-off period. So until the curiosity exists, the reading too will go on i suppose.

Profoundity and vastness of vision are not limited to indian liteature alone, i feel. There are beliefs across the world, whose concepts are very profound, though as literature they may not stand out as extraordinary compositions.

In your response to Shri Nara above (post # 56) you have actually typed out an imagined conversation. I don't understand what such kind of 'lobby-level' talk would mean to you, especially when you say you do not wish to indulge in anything more than a lobby-level discussion.

I suppose, it would depend on each individual if s/he wishes to go a few steps beyond 'lobby-level' talk. If you feel reticent to take a few steps ahead, i leave at that.

Best wishes and thankyou for your time.

Regards.

In the area of life and time management Steven Covey (of 7 habits fame) divides our work into four quadrants by using urgent & not urgent as one axis and Important (to our mission in life) and not-important as the other axis resulting in 4 quadrants. The quandrant 4 activities fall into "neither important nor urgent" tends to include activities like watching TV or sports , engaging in aimless arguments though these may be temporarily pleasurable. I do engage in Quadrant 4 activities and some of my posting including the one you referenced is an example of that

Shradha does not have an equivalent meaning in English or for that matter any other language. It is loosely translated as Faith which is incorrect. It is more like Faith when you start and ratified by reason and understanding later. Upanishads (and Gita which provides the essence of Upansihads) are not literature or even philosophies. They address a subject matter for humanity not found anywhere else. One should not approach such teaching via belief (but Shradha) and has to be understood like a scientist would understand a phenomena in the objective world.

There are great literature in other cultures. However most religions including many practices falling under Hindu traditions fall under a realm of belief. An un-verifiable belief is one thing, but an un-verifiable belief with self contradictions in the description of the theology can cause wars between people fallowing different belief systems. Hence they are not only not profound but the aggressive propagation of such theologies continue to be an issue for all societies worldwide.

As an ex-physcist I have a greater appreciation for profundity of what has been understood in terms of objective reality. Again a high level discussion about curved space or multi-verses or hidden realities is possible at a 'lobby level' only. A serious discussion with intent to learn (and dismiss the learning if there are contradictions after doing due diligence) would require tremendous infrastructure & pre-requisites, commitment of time and right attitude to learn. Hence my reticence in engaging beyond some level in any forum since these preconditions are rarely satisfied.

However I will try to follow your suggestion of treating this as a satsang and participate when I can. I know I can be drawn into unproductive debates and I will have to watch myself for that

Regards
TKS

 

[pcramabadran]

Dear TKS

As long as we born of brahmin parents, do pitrukarmas sincerely live austere and are not ostentatious, nor pretentious, eat vegetarian food, have basic knowledge
of vedas and scriptures not necessarily fully conversant as scholars, not greedy, speak truth nothing but truth and are pious, we can call ourselves brahmins.
I have close relations whose sons , two are married to whites, some kshatriya girls and so on yet they call themselves
brahmins. You cannot foresee fifty years hence what would be the state of affairs; already brahmins have undergone
significant changes in life pattern with the advancement of technology and other causative factors. In these modern times
you have to live with the majority brahmins and follow what is generally practised. Exercising preferences or options
or practice is individual perogative. If you are a person of abstract principles follow the same without giving room for
adjustment subject to the approval of your family members. Though I am sufficiently aged in this forum I am a junior;
there are veterans whose views I always respect for they reflect thorough critical analysis of each subject.

PC RAMABADRAN

 

[Raghy]

I am writing in connection to post #56 in this thread, containing an imaginary conversation.

Sri.TKS Sir, Greetings.

Kindly consider me as XYZ or ABC.The post #56 is tasteless. If you have an argument to present, kindly do so; in the case of any lack of arguments, kindly don't indulge in assumed conversations. To make the matters worst, you have not even specified it was an imaginary conversation. Every member here has a signature, style and certain view points. Such 'imaginary conversations' would throw other members off-guard. In fact, I was searching the thread to see If the member mentioned by you said anything like you imagined; since I knew that member would not say such things.

I humbly request Sri.KRS to intervene, please. In my opinion, post #56 sounds like a mockery. I really wonder if that post deserves to be in this thread, please. Thank you.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Sangom Sir, Greetings.

I therefore feel that BG 18-41 to 44 should remind 'brahmans by birth' of the additional qualifications they have yet to acquire before deserving the epithet of brahmana, rather than the easy way of getting the sacred thread through a rite and ipso facto claiming all the credit of a true brahmana. Perhaps we should bring in a reform so that only those children (from all castes) who exhibit the nascent signs of a TRUE brahmana as described in BG 18-41-a, will be eligible (but not compulsory for them) for upanayanam, and the rest, even if born to brahmana parents will be disqualified. Any takers?

I was one of the takers. My Upanayanam was done while I was 22 years old. I kept the thread for a decade at the most. At one point, I took it off since I felt, I did not deserve to keep that thread.

I sincerely believe, if I engage in something, I should do it whole heartedly and sincerely; I was not performing 'sandhya vandhanams; I was not reciting Gayatri madrams; to make the matters worst, I was a smoker too. One Avani Avittam day, I took off the old poonool and did not replace with a new one. I believed, I did not deserve to have a poonool.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

In the area of life and time management Steven Covey (of 7 habits fame) divides our work into four quadrants by using urgent & not urgent as one axis and Important (to our mission in life) and not-important as the other axis resulting in 4 quadrants. The quandrant 4 activities fall into "neither important nor urgent" tends to include activities like watching TV or sports , engaging in aimless arguments though these may be temporarily pleasurable. I do engage in Quadrant 4 activities and some of my posting including the one you referenced is an example of that

Shradha does not have an equivalent meaning in English or for that matter any other language. It is loosely translated as Faith which is incorrect. It is more like Faith when you start and ratified by reason and understanding later. Upanishads (and Gita which provides the essence of Upansihads) are not literature or even philosophies. They address a subject matter for humanity not found anywhere else. One should not approach such teaching via belief (but Shradha) and has to be understood like a scientist would understand a phenomena in the objective world.

There are great literature in other cultures. However most religions including many practices falling under Hindu traditions fall under a realm of belief. An un-verifiable belief is one thing, but an un-verifiable belief with self contradictions in the description of the theology can cause wars between people fallowing different belief systems. Hence they are not only not profound but the aggressive propagation of such theologies continue to be an issue for all societies worldwide.

As an ex-physcist I have a greater appreciation for profundity of what has been understood in terms of objective reality. Again a high level discussion about curved space or multi-verses or hidden realities is possible at a 'lobby level' only. A serious discussion with intent to learn (and dismiss the learning if there are contradictions after doing due diligence) would require tremendous infrastructure & pre-requisites, commitment of time and right attitude to learn. Hence my reticence in engaging beyond some level in any forum since these preconditions are rarely satisfied.

However I will try to follow your suggestion of treating this as a satsang and participate when I can. I know I can be drawn into unproductive debates and I will have to watch myself for that

Regards
TKS

Shri TKS,

For all talk on Shraddha and belief, it appears that you are unwilling to go into discussions where your ideas will be challenged. Hence, all the excuses of the forum's incapacity, time management, etc. You seem to have the time to read Nara sir's posts and even type out a long elaborate imagined caricature of a conversation b/w you both. Yet you speak of aimless arguments. Btw, how do you define anyone's arguments are "aimless"? So sir, be honest, if you unwilling to get into discussions, you might as well state exactly so. There is no need to conjure up excuses.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Sri.Sangom Sir, Greetings.



I was one of the takers. My Upanayanam was done while I was 22 years old. I kept the thread for a decade at the most. At one point, I took it off since I felt, I did not deserve to keep that thread.

I sincerely believe, if I engage in something, I should do it whole heartedly and sincerely; I was not performing 'sandhya vandhanams; I was not reciting Gayatri madrams; to make the matters worst, I was a smoker too. One Avani Avittam day, I took off the old poonool and did not replace with a new one. I believed, I did not deserve to have a poonool.

Cheers!

Dear Sir,

I think you have been exceptional in being honest with yourself. So has Shri Kunjuppu Ji. Faith in religion survives because of people like yourselves.

I have come across brahmins who drink a bottle a day, smoke 5 packs a day, eat meat, bribe everyone left and right, one even visits pole dancers though he is an old man, and yet all of these gloat about being brahmins (and ofcourse all of them have the thread across the torso and do the sandhya vandanam when they are sober). Perhaps i am the only one taking note of their caste. Others around me are like 'oh he is like that, so what', etc. In day to day life people rarely take note of caste i feel...its just the daily routinue of going to work and coming home.

 

[tks]

Dear TKS

As long as we born of brahmin parents, do pitrukarmas sincerely live austere and are not ostentatious, nor pretentious, eat vegetarian food, have basic knowledge
of vedas and scriptures not necessarily fully conversant as scholars, not greedy, speak truth nothing but truth and are pious, we can call ourselves brahmins.
I have close relations whose sons , two are married to whites, some kshatriya girls and so on yet they call themselves
brahmins. You cannot foresee fifty years hence what would be the state of affairs; already brahmins have undergone
significant changes in life pattern with the advancement of technology and other causative factors. In these modern times
you have to live with the majority brahmins and follow what is generally practised. Exercising preferences or options
or practice is individual perogative. If you are a person of abstract principles follow the same without giving room for
adjustment subject to the approval of your family members. Though I am sufficiently aged in this forum I am a junior;
there are veterans whose views I always respect for they reflect thorough critical analysis of each subject.

PC RAMABADRAN

Ramabadran ji -

You are not aged , but wise!
I think many of what you have said could be followed by almost anyone regardless of their roots. In today's world not only your daughter-in-law of your close relation but anyone that cares about others, does not want to cause hurt, has genuine interest in learning (the truth about themselves) will be accepted by today's society of Brahmins notwithstanding their roots as one of their own family members. At least that has been my experience with many of the people I have come across.

TKS

 

[tks]

tks, I am used to have arguments turn into name calling, some do it openly, others do it in a subtle way like you have done. You know, I can also make an imaginary conversation and make your arguments into a caricature, and you into someone adamantly sticking to your position -- filibustering -- but I won't. While Justices and crooks among justices are widely accepted reality, there is no such things as Brahmana and Guna-Brahmana that is accepted across the board.

Once again, my criticisms go unanswered, but then, I am used to that here.

Cheers!

Nara ji -

My intent was not to do any name calling but illustrate a point of view by taking an absurd situation and exposing that as a conversation amongst people. Exposing by conversation and story telling -imagined or otherwise- dates back to vedic times. My intent was to exaggerate and make it humorous - not to caricature you . It is unfortunate that you have taken that way. Yes, I used phrases I have seen around. If this caused any issues for you, I take responsibility for this and do apologize.

In my limited experience here, many disagreements of style or substance are quickly turned into 'You are calling me a name'

If the situation of this mock dialog (and I stated it is an imaginary conversation) does not apply to you why try to even think that it applies to you. You have stated that your criticisms go unanswered.
Let us think this through. You come to a forum with a title "Tamil Brahmins" and have stated repeatedly that the term Brahmin is obnoxious even after people point out to you that they view this as an identity not supremacy and that they are proud of their identity. However none of the people that do think themselves as Tamil Brahmin have stated that they are being called names after reading your assertions. They simply acknowledge that it is your views and that is all. And they reason - "your views do not apply to me and so I am not affected".. Though you call brahmin term with all that is vile I hope you dont think the same of people that hold that identity. I think you dont..



The first post I read was of the creator of this forum who had a message - that is the first thread in this group. I resolved not to cause unnecessary work for the moderators when I read Pravin's message .

So moderator - if you want to remove the post #56 because it makes your role easy (based on what I read in another post wanting to remove it) - please go ahead. I dont have any vested ego in that posting.

I am not upset but disappointed ...

TKS

 

[happyhindu]

...even after people point out to you that they view this as an identity not supremacy and that they are proud of their identity.

1) how can anyone be proud of an "identity" that does not belong to him?
2) where does such "pride" come from?
3) what does such "pride" serve?

since you are not interested in anything more than "lobby-level' discussions, i leave it at this.

however, i do request folks reading this to do some introspection, especially regarding points 2 and 3.

 

[tks]

1) how can anyone be proud of an "identity" that does not belong to him?
2) where does such "pride" come from?
3) what does such "pride" serve?

since you are not interested in anything more than "lobby-level' discussions, i leave it at this.

however, i do request folks reading this to do some introspection, especially regarding points 2 and 3.

HappyHindu -

1. Posting #29, 31, and 39 in this thread by KRS do use the words such as identity, proud etc. It is clear to me what he says.
2. I used the word Proud to mean being validated - Nothing profound.
To explain: I am fine the way I am, I am OK with my name that my parents gave me - I am happy with the parents I had and how they raised me ; I am happy with the house I have ; I am fine with my name; I am fine having been born in India - Summary of all this is that I am proud of my heritage - this does not mean I think someone else is anything less or more.
3. There is no agenda I detect when someone say they are proud of their heritage or ancestory. So the use of word pride tell me that they accept themselves as they are and are not trying to change anything about themselves or others.

TKS