What makes one a Tamil Brahmin these days?

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

Nowhere did i refer to Shri KRS ji. My response was to your post. You said brahmins are proud of their identity. So i asked how can one be proud of an identity that does not belong to him.

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

Here we are specifically talking about pride in the 'brahmin' identity, not general life. If you are proud of your heritage, then are you also proud of social discrimination, untouchability in the secular world, and the offensive portions of dharmashastras ? Naturally if one is proud of his heritage, he will like to emulate such things from his elders and follow it.

 

[subbudu1]

One thing all tamil brahmins like is this
கல்யாண சமையல் சாதம் காய்கறிகள் பிரமாதம் இதுவே எனக்கு போதும் ஆஹா ஆஹா ஹா


This song is part of our identity - though it is not caste specific.

 

[renuka]

One thing all tamil brahmins like is this
கல்யாண சமையல் சாதம் காய்கறிகள் பிரமாதம் இதுவே எனக்கு போதும் ஆஹா ஆஹா ஹா


This song is part of our identity - though it is not caste specific.

Subs,

YouTube - kalyana samayal saadham

 

[tks]

Nowhere did i refer to Shri KRS ji. My response was to your post. You said brahmins are proud of their identity. So i asked how can one be proud of an identity that does not belong to him.


Here we are specifically talking about pride in the 'brahmin' identity, not general life. If you are proud of your heritage, then are you also proud of social discrimination, untouchability in the secular world, and the offensive portions of dharmashastras ? Naturally if one is proud of his heritage, he will like to emulate such things from his elders and follow it.

- Please allow for the possibility that Brahmin identity does not equate in the minds of many people - social discrimination, untouchability, etc. Though I am not the youngest here I never got exposed to any such aspects while growing up in my teen years in Delhi or outside India. I do not consider these traits as belonging to Brahmins by defintion of the word notwithstanding what my ancestors may or may not have done. I consider those as acts of human ignrance.
- KRS ji did say in this thread that he is proud of his Indian American Brahmin identity and you are welcome to direct the same question to him as well
- Not only myself I know many including my children for whom the social discrimination is a terrible act but one of historical and academic significance. It may still be happening but we dont consider ourselves to be related to any such thinking.

- This is not an attack: However one interpretation of prejudice is to add attributes (usually negative) to someone in a broad generalization based on where they were born. To insinuate that anyone who has been born in a 'Brahmin family' however that is defined (which was what this thread was all about) and who may be 'proud' of their background like anyone in general life, with vile defintions is downright disrespectful.

---------------------

This is a request to all those who are pre-occupied by acts of ignorant 'Brahmins' and feel that the same points need to be to be made again and again without regard to context

- I explained example use of the word 'Proud' and what I meant (as in general life). My request is that we stop insinuating those vile things of the past with the word Brahmin. Once again, in my view it is insensitive, and it corrupts the all discussions in my view. This constant preoccupation with those ignorant acts regardless of contexts turns off anyone from participating in such discussions. The context of this thread was - what makes you think of yourself as a Tamil Brahmin. There had been many thoughtful responses. I am more than happy to delete the first posting if that would stop this pre-occupation.

To Moderators:
If there was a forum for Muslims and if someone were to go there and talk about how the acts of terrorists and suicide bombers are the attributes of their religion in any context would they allow such people to continue corrupting the discussion under the banner of intellectual exchange? This forum has the name Brahmin and in my view discussion of caste system, its discrimination aspects , how to overcome such acts that may be happening today, how do we mature and grow from our past, how to reconcile the past etc are valid discussion points. However if somone is constantly disrespectful of the word that should not be acceptable. I am not affected but it can turn off many others by the preoccupation of a handful.

Thanks
TKS

 

[tks]

One thing all tamil brahmins like is this
கல்யாண சமையல் சாதம் காய்கறிகள் பிரமாதம் இதுவே எனக்கு போதும் ஆஹா ஆஹா ஹா


This song is part of our identity - though it is not caste specific.

I love this, wish I could learn to type fonts here.. Brhmana are Bhojana-Priya is another line that comes to my mind!

 

[happyhindu]

- Please allow for the possibility that Brahmin identity does not equate in the minds of many people - social discrimination, untouchability, etc.

Sir, wish this were in our hands. But please think of these 2 scenarios. First is the scriptural situation and second is the actual social situation.

Scripturally, priests are supposedly brahmins. That is the role they created for themselves. They do rituals and are not into the “pursuit of brahman” (though they may claim to be), yet they are called Brahmins. Getting into the historical aspect of how such a culture came to be wud make this long winding. So lets leave that. The Sadhus on the other hand are in the pursuit of Brahman (they may or may not be involved in ritualism). Yet the sadhus are not called Brahmins.

Rightfully, which of these two should be called Brahmins? The Smartha follower of Purvamimansa ritualism and Smrithis ? Or the sadhus who lives in the pursuit of Brahman?

If the Smartha ritualist wants to be called a brahmin, he is supposed to follow things prescribed for him in the dharmashastras (though i wonder how that wud make him into a brahmin, anyways lets leave that aside). But we can agree that he need not (and does not) follow the offensive parts of the smrithis today. However, he is atleast supposed to follow some basic rituals prescribed for him. It is in this scenario we come to the actual social situation, in which lets consider two groups.

One is set A that does NOT follow any prescribed rituals, yet wants to be called brahmins. The next is set B which follows ritualism with complete shraddha (household purohits who may or may not have a secular job, and temple priests come under this category because they are truly living life as brahmins).

So tell me sir, why should the non-practicing ritualists of set A want to claim a position of respect that rightfully belongs to set B? Anyone in the public will normally give the position of respect to set B. Is it fair for Set A to contend for such a position? Will it not spoil the image of set B? Will it not be seen as a 'corrupting' factor / influence in the society ?

- This is not an attack: However one interpretation of prejudice is to add attributes (usually negative) to someone in a broad generalization based on where they were born. To insinuate that anyone who has been born in a 'Brahmin family' however that is defined (which was what this thread was all about) and who may be 'proud' of their background like anyone in general life, with vile defintions is downright disrespectful.

[...]

- I explained example use of the word 'Proud' and what I meant (as in general life). My request is that we stop insinuating those vile things of the past with the word Brahmin. Once again, in my view it is insensitive, and it corrupts the all discussions in my view. This constant preoccupation with those ignorant acts regardless of contexts turns off anyone from participating in such discussions. The context of this thread was - what makes you think of yourself as a Tamil Brahmin. There had been many thoughtful responses. I am more than happy to delete the first posting if that would stop this pre-occupation.

Sir, smrithis are more than disrespectful to NBs. But anyways, it is heartening to see another person (apart from a handful of others on this forum) who debunks social discrimination, untouchability, etc (truly they are “acts of human ignorance” as you put it). Past is past. The world has moved on. I may want to think no one has time for the past. Yet there are people (irrespective of ‘caste’) who wish to keep casteism alive in the year 2011 AD. As long as such people are around, unfortunately words like ‘brahmin’ and ‘shudra’ will remain reminiscent of a difficult past.

Shri TKS, please, i do not mean to be disrespectful with my posts. All i can possibly ask is for people to be honest with themselves when it comes to social identities, because what these things are at an individual level do reflect on the society at large. Afterall, we are the society ourselves. Hope this is not too much to ask.

Regards.

 

[subbudu1]

Sir, wish this were in our hands. But please think of these 2 scenarios. First is the scriptural situation and second is the actual social situation.

Scripturally, priests are supposedly brahmins. That is the role they created for themselves. They do rituals and are not into the “pursuit of brahman” (though they may claim to be), yet they are called Brahmins. Getting into the historical aspect of how such a culture came to be wud make this long winding. So lets leave that. The Sadhus on the other hand are in the pursuit of Brahman (they may or may not be involved in ritualism). Yet the sadhus are not called Brahmins.

Rightfully, which of these two should be called Brahmins? The Smartha follower of Purvamimansa ritualism and Smrithis ? Or the sadhus who lives in the pursuit of Brahman?

If the Smartha ritualist wants to be called a brahmin, he is supposed to follow things prescribed for him in the dharmashastras (though i wonder how that wud make him into a brahmin, anyways lets leave that aside). But we can agree that he need not (and does not) follow the offensive parts of the smrithis today. However, he is atleast supposed to follow some basic rituals prescribed for him. It is in this scenario we come to the actual social situation, in which lets consider two groups.

One is set A that does NOT follow any prescribed rituals, yet wants to be called brahmins. The next is set B which follows ritualism with complete shraddha (household purohits who may or may not have a secular job, and temple priests come under this category because they are truly living life as brahmins).

So tell me sir, why should the non-practicing ritualists of set A want to claim a position of respect that rightfully belongs to set B? Anyone in the public will normally give the position of respect to set B. Is it fair for Set A to contend for such a position? Will it not spoil the image of set B? Will it not be seen as a 'corrupting' factor / influence in the society ?

Sir, smrithis are more than disrespectful to NBs. But anyways, it is heartening to see another person (apart from a handful of others on this forum) who debunks social discrimination, untouchability, etc (truly they are “acts of human ignorance” as you put it). Past is past. The world has moved on. I may want to think no one has time for the past. Yet there are people (irrespective of ‘caste’) who wish to keep casteism alive in the year 2011 AD. As long as such people are around, unfortunately words like ‘brahmin’ and ‘shudra’ will remain reminiscent of a difficult past.

Shri TKS, please, i do not mean to be disrespectful with my posts. All i can possibly ask is for people to be honest with themselves when it comes to social identities, because what these things are at an individual level do reflect on the society at large. Afterall, we are the society ourselves. Hope this is not too much to ask.

Regards.

Fault is with non brahmins also. They should call only those whom they think as brahmins as brahmins . Those whom they dont think as brahmins they should not call them as brahmins. If they feel no one qualifies or no one should be called a brahmin dont call anyone a brahmin. Matter finished.

You cannot allow someone to take up a title if you dont agree with it. May be that was the reason for extensive use of the word Parpanaar ? But here also they allowed them a status of twice birth when only handful were sincere about a so called twice birth. Let people call themselves whatever they like , you do what you believe in.

 

[happyhindu]

May be that was the reason for extensive use of the word Parpanaar ? But here also they allowed them a status of twice birth when only handful were sincere about a so called twice birth.

Sir, i feel Parpanar (the one who sees god everyday) came under the anthanar category. Very likely they were worshipping 'non-vedic' gods (like shiva, narayana, durga, krishna, etc) and hence were not called brahmins or brahmanas. This was discussed in quite a few threads in this forum. There was an interesting conversation between shri nara and saidevo on the anthanars of tholkappiyam. I forgot the name of the thread unfortunately.
Regards.

 

[tks]

Sir, wish this were in our hands. But please think of these 2 scenarios. First is the scriptural situation and second is the actual social situation.

Scripturally, priests are supposedly brahmins. That is the role they created for themselves. They do rituals and are not into the “pursuit of brahman” (though they may claim to be), yet they are called Brahmins. Getting into the historical aspect of how such a culture came to be wud make this long winding. So lets leave that. The Sadhus on the other hand are in the pursuit of Brahman (they may or may not be involved in ritualism). Yet the sadhus are not called Brahmins.

Rightfully, which of these two should be called Brahmins? The Smartha follower of Purvamimansa ritualism and Smrithis ? Or the sadhus who lives in the pursuit of Brahman?

If the Smartha ritualist wants to be called a brahmin, he is supposed to follow things prescribed for him in the dharmashastras (though i wonder how that wud make him into a brahmin, anyways lets leave that aside). But we can agree that he need not (and does not) follow the offensive parts of the smrithis today. However, he is atleast supposed to follow some basic rituals prescribed for him. It is in this scenario we come to the actual social situation, in which lets consider two groups.

One is set A that does NOT follow any prescribed rituals, yet wants to be called brahmins. The next is set B which follows ritualism with complete shraddha (household purohits who may or may not have a secular job, and temple priests come under this category because they are truly living life as brahmins).

So tell me sir, why should the non-practicing ritualists of set A want to claim a position of respect that rightfully belongs to set B? Anyone in the public will normally give the position of respect to set B. Is it fair for Set A to contend for such a position? Will it not spoil the image of set B? Will it not be seen as a 'corrupting' factor / influence in the society ?

Sir, smrithis are more than disrespectful to NBs. But anyways, it is heartening to see another person (apart from a handful of others on this forum) who debunks social discrimination, untouchability, etc (truly they are “acts of human ignorance” as you put it). Past is past. The world has moved on. I may want to think no one has time for the past. Yet there are people (irrespective of ‘caste’) who wish to keep casteism alive in the year 2011 AD. As long as such people are around, unfortunately words like ‘brahmin’ and ‘shudra’ will remain reminiscent of a difficult past.

Shri TKS, please, i do not mean to be disrespectful with my posts. All i can possibly ask is for people to be honest with themselves when it comes to social identities, because what these things are at an individual level do reflect on the society at large. Afterall, we are the society ourselves. Hope this is not too much to ask.

Regards.

1. I think what is in your hands and my hands is taking personal responsibility on how we treat others. Treating others with respect is basic requirement in my view before talking about any social issues. It is disrespectful and not nice to assume someone carries a prejudiced view until they make their position explicit. I suggest that we start with the assumption that people hold good intent when they say they are Tamil Brahmins. Period.

2. With all due respect, I think it is not your business or anyone's business to assign the title of Brahmin to anyone. If someone says they are Brahmin in today's day and age you accept that as their identity. That is a respectful thing to do. It does not mean someone is great notwithstanding what the meaning of the word Brahmin may mean. Most people I know do not live up to the expectations of the word Brahmin and do not claim so either.

3. Let people earn the respect they deserve by the strength of their charecter. I for one dont care one way or the other if someone says they are a Brahmin. My reaction is similar to listening to someone's name. I know someone whose name is Koteeswaran but poor to the bones.

4. If you have a problem with some Brahmins being disrespectful to Non-Brahmins please take the issues with them rather than make your points in a thread where no one has stated disrespectful view towards Non-Brahmins. I personally learnt a lot from a monk who is an American who is a Non-Brahmin by his own statements. When you keep bringing the same points from many angles it comes across as unwarrented protests and an exhibition of 'holier than thou' attitude (which I am sure you will say is not what you have in your mind).

5. Before asking others about what the society should do please try to not bring the same issues over and over again and allow for other views to be possible in this subject. It is not too much to ask. I did dignify your earlier question to me with an answer when you asked if I am proud of all the social discriminations of the past? Notwithstanding your claim that you do not mean to be disrespectful - it does come across that way. I came to this forum to learn what people think of themselves but did not expect having to dignify such questions with a response.

6. The world has moved on as you correctly put it. My plea to you is for you to move past delivering unflattering insinuations when you meet someone new here

7. The priests in India for most part are not doing well. Most do not wish their children to go in their profession. When a child is unable to do well in school sometimes parents tell them to become a priest. Temple priests are not great role models either. I do not look forward to going to temples in India because I find most temple priests to be corrupt.

8. Many 'Brahmin' families hailing from some parts of South India have their Kula Daivam to be an Amman temple. Ours is the temple at Siruvachiyoor. For generations that I know my ancestors from what I understand used to get their first hair offering or deliver their first pay check to this temple. For support of this tradition we did the same for my children who are born here. It is a Non-Brahmin temple and until about 10 years ago they used to do Archana only in Tamil. Priests did not wear Poonal there. My family is hardly unique in following such traditions. So I was raised to respect Non-Brahmins from my youngest days that I remember.

9. I wanted to be respectful and have tried to respond back to your questions. Unless I sense your questions in the future to be addressed with respect in both words and intent I do not expect to engage or respond anymore.


Regards,
TKS

 

[Nara]

Shri tks,

Whether you really mocked me or not, only you know. All I can do is go by the words written. Your imaginary conversation did not address any of my points, it only mocked me. Let me cite two of those points.

• Why do Brahmins spend so much time analyzing what it means to be a Brahmin, the so called Shudras don't?
• 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. This is certainly viewed as odious by almost all NBs.

Now, you can try to answer these questions, or simply ignore them. Instead, you make up an imaginary dialog and paint my arguments as unreasoned, and I as a person as adamant, all the while not directly even attempting to address the points I had raised, and then you say this:

• My intent was not to do any name calling
• My intent was to exaggerate and make it humorous - not to caricature you .
• 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.
• It is unfortunate that you have taken that way.

So, you admit your intent is to exaggerate, which to you is not caricaturing, and have a mock dialog in which you make up a person called Nara and mock that Nara, and if I take it as a personal attack, then it is my fault? Nice!!!

BTW, humor that puts others down is plain and simple mean.

If this caused any issues for you, I take responsibility for this and do apologize.

Sir, IMO, an apology that starts with an "if" is an insult disguised as apology.

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.

TKS, somebody pointing out "they view this as an identity not supremacy" is just an assertion, not an answer. Take any academic text, journal article, studies and what not on caste system, discrimination and oppression, you will see a discussion of Brahminism. So simply asserting it is only an identity won't do.

All the benign cultural aspects like cuisine, music, art, can be preserved without hanging on to this so called Brahmin identity, an identity which conjures up centuries of oppression among millions of NBs and Dalits, go ask any of them if you don't believe me. Even though the Dalits of TN suffer physical violence only from NBs not Bs, they oppose the idea of Brahminism foremost, why is that? To answer such questions with, "we view this as just identity" is woefully inadequate to say the least.

Why cling to an identity that perpetuates this kind of negative image?

IMO, it is the solemn duty of educated and modern Brahmins, examples of whom abound here, to show the light to other Brahmins who are stuck in superstition and caste identity. This is what I consider looking out for the true welfare of our brothers and sisters who think of themselves as Brahmins. Mocking me with exaggerated and imaginary dialog may make you feel good, but it is certainly not good for ordinary Brahmins for whom Brahmin identity is nothing more than a caste-identity.

Cheers!

 

[kkumar29]

3. Let people earn the respect they deserve by the strength of their charecter. I for one dont care one way or the other if someone says they are a Brahmin. My reaction is similar to listening to someone's name. I know someone whose name is Koteeswaran but poor to the bones.

You didn't have to drag my father into this discussion :hurt:

K. Kumar

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

TO ALL,
I attach a mail received by me in another forum for information of other members.
A few months back there was an exchange between a former member(Shri.RVR) and M/s HH in some thread when Shri.RVR volunteered to file an affidavit for change of caste from 'Brahmin to S/C'.Now Shri.AMITABH has actually done it (of course not change of caste from a F/C to S/C).In Tamilnadu most of the Tabras are not affixing
caste tag after their name.In my opinion this is only a publicity stunt and is not likely to either help or achieve the purpose for which the affidavit has been filed.I recollect an article in a National Newspaper written by Shri.M.N.Buch who preferred to take VRS as Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh when he had serious difference of opinion with the then Chief Minister late ARJUN SINGH when the chief secretary was forced to implement an illegal action.In the article Shri.M.N.Buch stated how he had informed the then Chief Minister that he may not be able to implement
any illegal orders but would prefer to retire from service honourably.He had mentioned the names of Shri.C.P.Thomas,Smt.Kiran BEDI,and
Shri.T.N.Seshan and a few other officers who were always trying to catch the eye of the Top and were indulging in cheap publicity.According to Shri.M.N.Buch there were a large number of senior officers who do better work for upliftment of Society but not interested in publicity.I am inclined to assume that Shri.Amitabh also likes to get publicity.
I am confused whether the caste system in Hindu Society can be abolished just by filing affidavits and that too only by members belonging to a particular community.Are We sure that all other communities/castes in Hindu Society also want abolition of the caste system?My son had to visit
a TB S/V family in PALO ALTO,CA to collect a packet sent by my relative in INDIA who know this family for years as both are neighbours. My son
commented that they just opened the door and handed over the packet without even greeting him and inviting him inside the house.I told him it could be an isolated incident.After visiting a few temples now I am very certain that this caste/subcaste is being carried by Hindus wherever they go and this is carried by persons to other faiths too,when they change their faith.Perhaps future generations of Hindus born in other countries
may not have such prejuidices.
Shall be happy if constructive suggestions are put forth by knowledgeable members for abolition of Caste System.Being a minority Community,it may not be possible for TB community to take the initiative.








From: sri venkat <[email protected]>
Subject: {viprasamhitha} Removal of Brahman caste -- Amitabh affidavit as regards change of caste
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, April 9, 2011, 7:41 AM

Dear Friends



IPS, officer Sri Amitabh Thakur, is a active posts many positive messages in many groups. Amitabh Thakur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


He has now posted the below message he feels Indian society will benefit if it removed caste and he removes his brahman caste.

While most of us would agree that last name or external display of caste may not be necessary ... what advice can we give him on the importance of brahmans and their duty and dharma towards the welfare of Indian samaj.


Would removal of brahman duty help our samaj or actual performance of it help it (in terms rituals, sandhavandhan, spartan lifestyle, example to others etc ...


Please share your valued thoughts and suggestions.
venkat



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Amitabh Thakur <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Affidavit​

I, hitherto Amitabh Thakur s/o Sri Tapeshwar Narayan Thakur, r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (presently SP, Economic offences Wing, Meerut), hereby solemnly affirm on oath-
1. That I was born on 16th June 1968 in Muzaffarpur, Bihar
2. That I was born in a Hindu “Bhumihar Brahman” family
3. That I was named “Amitabh Thakur” by my family members
4. That till now I have been known to the world around as “Amitabh Thakur” belonging to “Bhumihar Brahman” caste
5. That after a deep and prolonged thinking, I have come to the conclusion that the Caste system in India is acting as a great burden for our socio-political system and the situation is deteriorating by every day
6. That I have a firm conviction that Caste system is one factor that adversely affects the progress of our Nation
7. That I feel that this caste system is playing a divisive role in our society and is often being used for justifying even unjustifiable stands and actions
8. That this has made me acknowledge that the time has come when we need to accept the teachings of people like Bhagwan Mahavir, Gautam Buddha, Sant Kabir Das and many other great persons of this soil belonging to the modern era as regards complete abolition of the Caste system
9. That based on the abovementioned facts, the minimum that I think I need to do is to get rid of this Caste system
10. That hence from today onwards, I shall be having no caste of mine
11. That in all administrative, official and social documents, records and acceptances, wherever my caste is needed, it shall be deemed to be “No Caste” or “Casteless”
12. That accordingly hereby I also remove the “Thakur” surname attached to my name “Amitabh”
13. That hence from today onwards, I shall be called only “Amitabh” instead of “Amitabh Thakur” in all administrative, official and social documents, records and acceptances
14. That I shall initiate the required and due processes for this once having made this Affidavit
15. That I am taking this decision in all my senses and having thoroughly gone into the pros and cons of the action I am doing and its related consequences.
16. That I am taking this decision only as regards me and it shall not have any effect on my wife Dr Nutan Thakur or my two children Tanaya Thakur or Aditya Thakur, who are free to choose their own course of action about this aspect

Hence, Help me God.

(Amitabh)
5/426, Viram Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

 

[happyhindu]

A few months back there was an exchange between a former member(Shri.RVR) and M/s HH in some thread when Shri.RVR volunteered to file an affidavit for change of caste from 'Brahmin to S/C'.

Sir, i feel perhaps you may have got this wrong. If i remember right Shri RVR had chickened out (although i had offered to provide him help with documentary proof to use in court). Also I don't think Shri RVR ever wanted to change caste (he went on to create a forum meant only for brahmins, this tells me he is very attached to his caste). Anyways, since Shri RVR is not posting here anymore, so it may not be appropriate to discuss him.

Now Shri.AMITABH has actually done it (of course not change of caste from a F/C to S/C).

Shri Amitabh Thakur is very right in saying that caste system is a burden to our socio-political situation. Certainly caste system is affecting the progress of India and is being used to justify even unjustifiable stands. However, i do not understand why Shri Amitabh Thakur wants to give up his surname Thakur. His surname (thakur) is merely a title. It does not signify a caste. However, if he feels giving up surname is a way to show he has given up caste, then well it is his wish. In Tamilnadu, people may have given up surnames, yet they might indulge in casteism.

My son had to visit
a TB S/V family in PALO ALTO,CA to collect a packet sent by my relative in INDIA who know this family for years as both are neighbours. My son
commented that they just opened the door and handed over the packet without even greeting him and inviting him inside the house

Maybe the SV family had a sick child at home. Maybe they had tasks to complete. Maybe they were in a rush to go elsewhere. There could be so many such reasons. On what basis can we assume that your son was not invited in merely for his caste?

Would removal of brahman duty help our samaj or actual performance of it help it (in terms rituals, sandhavandhan, spartan lifestyle, example to others etc ...

I feel this pertains to my post to Shri TKS, in which i mentioned set A (non-practicing people) and set B (practicing brahmins). I feel only set B should have the right to be called brahmins. Not those who claim they are brahmins 'by birth' (whatever that means). In this way the public will truly start to look up and treat brahmins (that is set B) with respect.

Regards.

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

M/s HH,
The assumptions made by you (regarding my son's visit to collect the article)could not be even remotely correct.In USA, the custom is to call,ascertain the convenience before visiting anyone's house.Further the visit has been made to a family well known in India.If they had any problem,the usual practice is to apprise the other party about the actual problem.
Even in INDIA,I have visited a number of North Indian,s houses(many times strangers).
In all the cases,they request you to come inside the house,offer water,and ask how they can be of help to me.Any way,let us not give too much importance to this isolated incident.
I would have been happy if you had offered your views about other caste people in Hindu
Society who are in large numbers taking concrete action on abolition of caste System and why only a minority community has to take the initiative.If the majority communities in Hindu Society work for abolition of caste system and the Brahmin community either do not cooperate or raise objections,there could be a genuine reason for blaming the Brahmin community.

 

[happyhindu]

Shri TKS,

Your post # 84 does not address the questions i had asked in post # 81. Anyways i shall reply to it.

1. I think what is in your hands and my hands is taking personal responsibility on how we treat others. Treating others with respect is basic requirement in my view before talking about any social issues. It is disrespectful and not nice to assume someone carries a prejudiced view until they make their position explicit. I suggest that we start with the assumption that people hold good intent when they say they are Tamil Brahmins. Period.

Sir, did i say i assume someone carries a prejudiced view when he says he is a tambram? Then why are you telling me this?

2. With all due respect, I think it is not your business or anyone's business to assign the title of Brahmin to anyone. If someone says they are Brahmin in today's day and age you accept that as their identity. That is a respectful thing to do. It does not mean someone is great notwithstanding what the meaning of the word Brahmin may mean. Most people I know do not live up to the expectations of the word Brahmin and do not claim so either.

Sorry sir, it is my business. I am a member of the public; and merely asking me to tow the line and call any inappropriate / undeserving man a brahmin will not do.

There are people who live life as true brahmins. Respect for such people comes automatically.

As for others who live secular lives, why do they need to be called brahmins?

3. Let people earn the respect they deserve by the strength of their charecter. I for one dont care one way or the other if someone says they are a Brahmin. My reaction is similar to listening to someone's name. I know someone whose name is Koteeswaran but poor to the bones.

Respect is earned by strength of character by anyone. He does not have to claim to be a brahmin for that.

To be precise, a man cannot demand respect by merely calling himself a brahmin 'by birth' when he is not practicing as one. This is like asking me to respect a man merely for his money, his birth in a rich family, his cars, his nike shoes, his rolex watch, etc.

4. If you have a problem with some Brahmins being disrespectful to Non-Brahmins please take the issues with them rather than make your points in a thread where no one has stated disrespectful view towards Non-Brahmins. I personally learnt a lot from a monk who is an American who is a Non-Brahmin by his own statements. When you keep bringing the same points from many angles it comes across as unwarrented protests and an exhibition of 'holier than thou' attitude (which I am sure you will say is not what you have in your mind).

Nowhere in this thread did we discuss the issue of respect or disrespect wrt brahmins or non-brahmins. It has come up only in your previous post and this one now. Yet you mention this.

5. Before asking others about what the society should do please try to not bring the same issues over and over again and allow for other views to be possible in this subject. It is not too much to ask. I did dignify your earlier question to me with an answer when you asked if I am proud of all the social discriminations of the past? Notwithstanding your claim that you do not mean to be disrespectful - it does come across that way. I came to this forum to learn what people think of themselves but did not expect having to dignify such questions with a response.

Merely asking one a question on the discriminations of the past does not amount to disrespect for you. You do not have to 'dignify' anyone with your response if you do not like something.

There are so many sections on this forum, so many people are posting so many things. Where did i disallow other's views?

6. The world has moved on as you correctly put it. My plea to you is for you to move past delivering unflattering insinuations when you meet someone new here

Now sir you are really alleging things. I request the moderator to intervene and kindly let me know where have i delivered unflattering insinuations to Shri TKS.

7. The priests in India for most part are not doing well. Most do not wish their children to go in their profession. When a child is unable to do well in school sometimes parents tell them to become a priest. Temple priests are not great role models either. I do not look forward to going to temples in India because I find most temple priests to be corrupt.

On the contrary, i have not met a single corrupt priest so far. I have met people in secular jobs who are corrupt. It is unfortunate hindus are not doing their mite to support priests. That is because folks in secular jobs who claim to be brahmins and do all sorts of nonsense have made the public to loose respect for the whole entity of brahmins.

8. Many 'Brahmin' families hailing from some parts of South India have their Kula Daivam to be an Amman temple. Ours is the temple at Siruvachiyoor. For generations that I know my ancestors from what I understand used to get their first hair offering or deliver their first pay check to this temple. For support of this tradition we did the same for my children who are born here. It is a Non-Brahmin temple and until about 10 years ago they used to do Archana only in Tamil. Priests did not wear Poonal there. My family is hardly unique in following such traditions. So I was raised to respect Non-Brahmins from my youngest days that I remember.

OK. Nice to know you respect folks irrespective of caste.

9. I wanted to be respectful and have tried to respond back to your questions. Unless I sense your questions in the future to be addressed with respect in both words and intent I do not expect to engage or respond anymore.

Sir you are well within your right to choose whether to respond or not. However, i feel your post # 84 is bordering on being accusative. I request the moderator to intervene and let me know where have i been disrespectful to Shri TKS in asking my questions.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

I would have been happy if you had offered your views about other caste people in Hindu
Society who are in large numbers taking concrete action on abolition of caste System and why only a minority community has to take the initiative. If the majority communities in Hindu Society work for abolition of caste system and the Brahmin community either do not cooperate or raise objections,there could be a genuine reason for blaming the Brahmin community.

Sir AFAIK all youngsters of all backgrounds do not support the caste system. They mix freely with others, give a damn for social propriety, and do things which casteist elders disprove of. All elders who support the caste system are having to deal with this 'headache', and 'effects of kaliyuga'.

No youngster is justifying the dharmashastras; unlike some folks on this forum and elsewhere who want it to be followed in this day. I think there is major revolution going on.

But the side effects is that youngsters are loosing interest in the religion. In this i feel brahmins have a major role to play. They can bring in younsters to develop the religion in an egalitarian way, like to develop the philosophical side of it even further and to have healthy debates on the itihaasas. Currently there are organisations like chimnaya mission, arya samaj, etc which do this. But unless the orthodoxy does not become an inclusive one, we may not see many benefits effecting the social scenario. Hence i feel brahmins, though a small community, do have a major role to play.

Yesterday's gurus are revered as gods today (although all their actions may not be perfect). Hopefully some large hearted brahmins will come forward and usher in an egalitarian society. If that happens i feel today's gurus will be remembered as gods tomorrow.

Regards.

 

[Nara]

.... why only a minority community has to take the initiative.

Dear BK sir, the reason is, they have been and still are, the fiercest defenders of the system, and their scriptures offer the intellectual foundation upon which the whole caste system is built. If the leaders, both religious and secular, of the Brahmin caste openly and boldly declare that the varna/caste system is not valid for Kali Yuga and people should abandon their caste identity (something that will happen when "hell" freezes over) I think that will amount to a death knell for this system.

BTW, I understand how your son might have felt. I know how the SVs in the U.S. who want to be observant, behave. As you have correctly observed, let us not give too much importance to such incidences, IMO, they are but victims of a once inclusive and progressive religious belief system gone totally awry 180 degrees. The SV of Bhagavat Ramanuja was an all-inclusive loving system. What remains of it now is a system hijacked by the brahmins and is totally opposite to that of the azhvars and early Acharyas.

best regards...

 

[Nara]

... merely asking me to tow the line and call any inappropriate / undeserving man a brahmin will not do.

There are people who live life as true brahmins. Respect for such people comes automatically.

As for others who live secular lives, why do they need to be called brahmins?

Dear Happy, I am forced to express my disagreement with the above. A true Brahmin does not deserve any more respect than an untrue Brahmin, as long as both are scoundrels. The point being, a true Brahmin, whoever that may be, can very well be a scoundrel. As an ancient SV commentator observed, it is an NB who is more able to be humble and deserving of our respect than a Brahmin male who is caught up in his birth superiority.

Respect is earned by strength of character by anyone. He does not have to claim to be a brahmin for that.

This, I agree. Strength of character measured by the level of empathy one is able to feel is the true barometer of who deserves our respect.

On the contrary, i have not met a single corrupt priest so far.

You are indeed lucky, I am not that lucky, I have met many. To be fair, I have met many who are very sincere and diligent, but I have also met many who must totally not believe in the sanctity of the archa moorthy in the temple, why else would they take to boozing and watching porn in the night and go to the temple and do aradhanai the next morning? What they do can be summarized as, கார்த்தால மணி அடிப்பான், சாயங்கலம் தண்ணி அடிப்பான். There are such Bhattars in some of the most celebrated SV Dhivya Desams visited by millions of Bhaktas from all over India.

BTW, there is nothing wrong in having a little fun, what is objectionable is the hypocrisy of these Bhattars.

I have no idea about Smartha Gurukkal, so what I have said applies only to SV Bhattars, that too only to some of them, I have come across many really sincere ones too. But, IMO, the important question is, why is it unreasonable to expect all of them, at least all of the ones who present themselves as paragons of religious virtue, to be not a hypocrite?

Cheers!

 

[subbudu1]

M/s HH,
The assumptions made by you (regarding my son's visit to collect the article)could not be even remotely correct.In USA, the custom is to call,ascertain the convenience before visiting anyone's house.Further the visit has been made to a family well known in India.If they had any problem,the usual practice is to apprise the other party about the actual problem.
Even in INDIA,I have visited a number of North Indian,s houses(many times strangers).
In all the cases,they request you to come inside the house,offer water,and ask how they can be of help to me.Any way,let us not give too much importance to this isolated incident.
I would have been happy if you had offered your views about other caste people in Hindu
Society who are in large numbers taking concrete action on abolition of caste System and why only a minority community has to take the initiative.If the majority communities in Hindu Society work for abolition of caste system and the Brahmin community either do not cooperate or raise objections,there could be a genuine reason for blaming the Brahmin community.

Do some people in India really remember the saying
Athithi Devo Bhava ?

 

[vasumathi]

What makes a brahmin is a good question. Mere birth alone cannot make a brahmin. Language does not matter. You have to practise what the Brhmana dharma says.
Reading Tamil exposes you to the rich heritage of the Tamils and can have a good knowledge of the hoary past as Tami is more ancient than Sanskrit and the culture is also very old.The writings of Kalki like Ponniyin selvan have to be read as you are wafted into the world of the Cholas. Religious hyms and literature have their own value unless uou read . One misses a lot if he is not familiar with Tamil.
Unfortunately we have no time to read the Vedas in these days of fast life.The Vedas are rich with scientific facts .
Now days most of the oin- brahmins are turning vegetarians and children in the west for health reasons.
In fact in the past all Brhmins were meat eaters and in the course of time they became vegetarians to acquire Sadvika guna. Beef eaters are animal like and they become terrorists . The Hinduism is against beef eating,.
So it is better to be a vegetarian. I am a retired professor of English and most of my non -brahmin students have become vegetarians for health reasons and out of repulsion. They are more religious than brahmins and hence they are coming up.
Be a brahmin in habits and imbibe the values of life.

 

[kunjuppu]

... Beef eaters are animal like and they become terrorists . The Hinduism is against beef eating,.
So it is better to be a vegetarian. I.

vasu,

i agree re your assessment of the love and knowledge of tamil. i cannot even now express the richness of my joy at reading ponniyin selvan (hope maniratnam does not make a mush of it in the forthcoming movie).

you may not like beef eaters. but beef eating does not make one a terrorist. if that be so, the entire western world would be one. the terrorists of today, are misguided fanatics, for whom i have no love. but definitely whatever may make them to be one, 'eating beef' is not. this i can assure you.

vegetarianism is good in itself. it does need someone to badmouth a non vegetarianism. to each his or her own. a a rule NV folks do not mock or abuse V folks. there are some violent V organizations.

PETA for one has been suspected indulge in violent methods. In India though PETA is respectable - Madhavan, Vidya Balan and some other top notch bollywood actors are its members. but they do not indulge in namecalling the NV folks. which is a good thing.

 

[kunjuppu]

Do some people in India really remember the saying
Athithi Devo Bhava ?

what is this?

 

[KRS]

Dear vasumathi Ji,

I agree with sri kunjuppu Ji on beef eating. One religion, namely Sikhism, addresses the dietary choices directly:

"Sikh intellectuals[8] believe that the issue of meat and vegetarianism is addressed in one section only of the Guru Granth Sahib:
—
First Mehl:
The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering.
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom.
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said.
They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts.
They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.
[9]
On the views that eating vegetation would be eating flesh, first Sikh Guru Nanak states:
AGGS, M 1, p 1290.[10]
—
First Mehl:
Punjabi: ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੂ ਜਾਣੈ ਹੀ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਿਥਹੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਉਪੰਨਾ ॥ ਤੋਇਅਹੁ ਅੰਨੁ ਕਮਾਦੁ ਕਪਾਹਾਂ ਤੋਇਅਹੁ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ ਗੰਨਾ ॥
O Pandit, you do not know where did flesh originate! It is water where life originated and it is water that sustains all life. It is water that produces grains, sugarcane, cotton and all forms of life.
On vegetation, the Guru Granth Sahib described it as living and experiencing pain:
—
First Mehl:
Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles,
and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed.
What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out.
And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below.
Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!
Page 143 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji [11]
The first Sikh Guru—Nanak Dev—said it was a pointless argument to debate the merits of either not eating or eating meat in the context of religion, as maintaining a strict diet does not make one blessed or elevate one to a superior status, spiritually or otherwise, over another.[12] Being a member of a religion incorporates not merely one's dietary customs but the entire way in which they govern their lifestyle.[13] He advocated a lifestyle consisting of honest, hard work and humility, focus and remembrance of God and compassion for all of humanity and God's creation all around, with these three key principles taking far greater precedence over one's dietary habits."

Ref: Diet in Sikhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

I do not know whether we agree on what makes a Brahmin today. But in my case my whole family teases me about my becoming a Brahmin at this late stage in life. When I joined this forum, I did not tell my family. But then I could not keep it hidden. When she knew my wife's first remark was "When did you become a Brahmin?" Later she told my children and I have become the butt of many jokes in the family.:Cry: and :laugh:

 

[Nara]

....The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.

I don't want to join this argument about meat and flesh lest my innate condition becomes public knowledge!

Why do religions so often label the ones who disagree as fools or some such?

Cheers!