What makes one a Tamil Brahmin these days?

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri tks Ji,
Thank you for your kind words.

I don't know what comments I have posted that you do not agree with!

Regards,
KRS

KRS -ji -

I enjoyed reading this post since you have made a few points better and with more clarity than I was aspiring to.
While I may not agree to your points on another post (the way I understood) regarding vegetarian aspects(which is huge topic,has its own thread elsewhere and hence did not comment ) I am able to understand and even resonate well with what you have stated here.

In fact all I was trying to say about Guna you have summarized well - "There are sattvic folks everywhere. There are scoundrels everywhere" and I want to add that achieving the best that one can be is the directive in Gita and in addition it provides prescriptions based on where one is (what guna is predominant).

Regards,
TKS

 

[biswa]

Okay I thought caste and caste purity will go for a toss. Bit rattling when I thought for first few years in this decade. But the tide seems inevitable. But the NB B difference will become unimportant. When father is a dalit and mom is a brahmin, why is the child going to worry about who did what 1000 years back. He will now be engaged fully in productive activities. Like the chineese , we also hopefully can engage on the common Indian greatness and not worry about Iyer, Iyengar, Nair, dalit, rajput etc. May be some will continue caste. I am sure by then it will be an issue of culture and not superior-inferior and all discussions on caste purity will become reduced to hush tones?

Egjactly, well said. Like it or not, there will be no more caste in 50 years. Might as well prepare to swim with the tide. This is one more thing we can learn from the Chinese, (of course disregarding the fact that their main religion is money.)

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

I don't know who they were in terms of Castes. That is why I said 'MY FOREFATHERS'. I know the make up of my parents and their parents. I do not believe then that their parents and grand parents would be oppressors. An apple never falls too far from the tree. I have already rejected the Dharma Shastras as irrelevant today. By inference, any authorship of any of them that are against humanity are also diabolical and evil. My point is, please don't include me and my lineage to them.

Sir, if we do not know who they were in terms of ‘caste’, how can we claim that your forefathers were most certainly brahmins?

I can not talk about Sri Raju Ji. As far as I am concerned, from the time I remember, my parents told me that we were Brahmins. When there was discrimination against some members of my family by the government, we were told that it was because we were Brahmins. I have already said that I am not a 'Brahmin' in the classical Varna sense. It is a cultural group for mr, to which I was born in to.

Again sir, we are talking of most recent times. I do not how one can say that "brahmin" is a culture that one was born into. Brahman unfortunately is a state of mind and knowledge attained by a Vipra, not a culture. Please let me know how you would designate any culture as "brahmin".

You perhaps mean that you were born into a family of priests. I do not know since when priests started claiming to be "brahmins". The Kalamukhas were Shaiva priests and Acharyas to traders even in 1144 AD (that is, even in the post-Shankara period). Culturally (afaik) those following agamic or tantric cultures, did not claim to be brahmins.

Priests of various hues claimed to be brahmins in more recent times. Even Gurukkals have started claiming to be Brahmins, although they were just 'Shivacharyas' or acharyas, or pillais earlier. Just because some priestly sections began claiming to be 'Smarthas' and hence Brahmins, does it become true?

Because initially, as far as I know, it was not birth based. In that sense it was merit based, which is an idealistic system that tried to use the talents of everyone for the betterment of the society. Moving to a birth based system screwed it up.

Sir, i do not understand this. Are you saying that people were given the title of being a brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra, based on merit and talents; and not by birth? Please can you elaborate on this. Even if it was an early time, when was such a system followed?

I can hope because I see it everyday in terms of social intercourse and thoughts with a lots of folks. Here in this Forum itself there are examples of folks who reject castes even though their parents' views were different. Over time, casteism will become anachronistic mainly because of the changes in social mores and advancement of technology. This is what I believe.

Yes sir truly, modernity / industrial + technological advancement, etc have dealt the biggest blow to casteism; much-much more than any social-activism / politics.

However am unable to agree with you that social intercourse and rejecting the notion of castes can result in removing "caste" notions, esp from the religious, scriptural, political and orthodox pov. As long as caste is propagated from the orthodox and scriptural pov, we cannot hope for the betterment of the religion or for an egalitarian society.

I have no idea what this brahmagnanam is. I am an average person, born in India with an average brain. I am not a believer in Purva Mimamsa rituals. I think that the 'classical' brahminism is dead for the most part. We all know the reasons.

I don't see how it can be alive when the whole system is gone. Yes, I judge a person by their conduct. I have no issues with calling anyone a Brahmin, if they exhibit a high degree of nobleness. There is no equivalent word in English. Nothing to do with caste, but everything to do with behavior and character.

Purvamimansa ritualism has its rightful place and an exalted place in our religion. And rightly so, because for many people life wud be bland without rituals. There may be a few like us who have moved beyond ritualism, but that's our personal call.

Sir, when you say you have rejected the dharmashastras, then as Shri Nara puts it, you have infact rejected brahmanism. In your personal capacity you with a large heart are willing to be inclusive and accepting of people based on their behavior and character. Unfortunately sir, few individual like yourself, will not be able to make a large scale impact on the betterment of the religion, nor will it affect the orthodoxy in anyway.

This was in response to those who associate the word 'Brahmin' to casteism automatically and want to eliminate the word.

Eliminating the word i think equates to giving up the falsified claim that one is somehow born with all knowledge of upanishads by birth, and has attained brahman by birth; and is therefore to be considered a brahmin by birth. This does not mean anyone is "destroying" your heritage. It means one is asking you to destroy the "corruption" in religion.

As regards casteism, unfortunately the term "brahman" as a rigid-birth-based occupational category exists only in the dharmashastras, wherein the term does equate to an 'oppressor' because the term has an equal and opposite meaning in the word "shudra". So if one were to use the term brahmin, it may remind a man of vile definitions assigned to a "shudra". Here we are not talking of temple priests. Because the culture of temple priests were derived from the agamic and tantric traditions and not from the dharmashastras.

Unfortunately sir the word brahman represents 2 images -- one of a monk meditating and becoming one with brahman, and another of a dharmashastra oppressor. It really depends on the person in whom either image is evoked. If he is a 'shudra' labourer he unfortunately cannot accept that 'brahmanism' (labour laws) mostly represented the good.
Again, this is why the generalization, especially based on such a varied history of our culture is wrong. Branding everything under a banner as evil, without qualifying is not correct.

Unfortuantely sir, notwithstanding the varied history, the "brahmins of the dharmashastras" is a term remniscent of oppresiveness, esp to the labourer designated as a "shudra". I do not know if such oppresivness is sufficient to be labelled "evil". I suppose it depends on each individual, how they see it.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

I am in agreement with you. That's why I used the term 'caste brahmnins' in my previous posts, which was not favoured by members like Sri.Nara.

Unfortuantely Shri Raghy, there is no such term as a "caste brahmin". If there is, please can you tell me if there are any scriptures that use such a term, esp as a term opposed to a "guna brahmin"?

I did not favour someone using a varna name to denote their caste.

Unfortuantely Shri Raghy, Varna and Jati are one and the same thing. Even an well known Sage claimed that Varna and Jati are different but did not explain it, possibly because the seer could not find an explanation for it. In the culture of the dharmashastras, an occupation defines Varna and it is the birth-based fixed occupation as a Jati. There is no such thing as a different varna and a different jati.

I explained that in a few different occassions. But, unfortunately, we do have a caste by the name 'brahmin' in the society. We didn't make it; but, we are caught in that.

Sir nobody can claim that they are "caught" in a term which they use to define themselves.

Personally, I don't even have a huge respect for the varna name. They all were tools used to enslave people in the society. Matter of fact, it enslaved the 'brahmins' too. I worked in the farm as any labourer; I took up trade course and worked in factories and machine-shops, involved in physical labour... Sometimes I heard comments like 'if brahmins are coming to even for these jobs, where can we (meaning NBs) go?'

Raghy sir, are you saying "brahmins" enslaved themselves during the dharmashastra period?

I am not in favour of varna system or caste system. But we are caught in that.

Again, one cannot claim to be "caught" in something if one chooses to follow it themselves.

Seldom I high-light any of my posts. But the above message required high-lighting. I agree with you. Caste system and the ever present discriminations are really bad medecine for the Hindu society. Whether we like it or not, we are required to fill the relevant column against 'caste'; If I wrote 'Iyengar' against caste column, it will be rejected; it has to be 'brahmin'.

So why not go to court and change caste legally?

I am all for helping the vulnerable people in the society (not just based on caste alone though). Why should there be a caste-based reservations? India is so rich now, why can't the Government allocate in every town, a whole college just for the vulnerable students only? I mean, like any university here, covering engineering/health/accounting/science courses? Government of India is rich enough to do it.

There will be caste-based reservations as long as social inequalities continue in the name of caste. The problem is that academic achievements and upward wealth mobility of people (of various backgrounds) makes no difference to the orthodoxy who propagate caste-system till date.

We should be strengthening these 'neutral persons' from all castes.

We should strengthen neutral people alright, but why based on "caste"?

These are the persons who would bring social reforms. I actually saw some of them during my last India trip. For example, As a group, some of us visted an Iyengar's home; he was showing off the house, every room; When it came to 'Pooja room' I thought he may not enter to avoid others from entering; no, Sir! He requested everyone, brahmin and NB alike inside the pooja room. We all went in, offered namaskarams in the pooja room. Such persons should be encouraged and supported, in my opinion.

I feel this is the minimum courtesy one wud show to a visitor. It is not nice to show your whole home, and then debar the visitor from entering the pooja room based on caste. I also feel the Iyengar person you are speaking of truly had no caste in his mind and was simply a loving human enjoying his time with his guests. Why spoil his fun by bringing his caste into the picture, which possibly he himself does not seem to take into consideration?

Sowbagyavathy HH, You did mention about vedic education for all; It is opening up for all. Initially it was from Arya Samaj only; now more and more places seem to open up, which is a very good sign. But, why? Why vedic education? How would that resolve caste differences? I don't really understand.

The dharmashastras and its proponents have designated vedic education for dvijas only. In short, the caste-system is based on disallowing vedic education for all. This is the crux of the caste-system; and based on it casteism flourishes. Therefore if vedic education is allowed for all, then caste system will wither.

If you think, only that way we can have NB priests taking part in temple poojas, then I have different opinion on that, please.

Raghy sir, why do you want to designate the priests as "NB priests"?

Most Amman temples have only NB poojaries. (in my village, it is a Gounder gentleman, my class mate; my daughter was rapped to meet him and talk to him about my primary school years!); In a Ramar temple, the poojari is a Mudaliar gentleman (appointed by my mother; she had an option to appoint a brahmin, but she chose him. That is the only temple my mother visits, gets 'theertham' and 'sadari' from him; he also recites 'Sundara kandam' once a year and my mother attends his recital).

Sir, if you go back just 100 years in time, you will find colonial records filled with priests of various kinds, of various deities and backgrounds. I also hope you read up on Vellala priests. Nobody needs to record every event of Sanskritisation. Today we have genetics, and a research group published a paper saying their sample of Iyers and Iyengars closely clustered with Vellalars. It is pretty much apparent what that means.

We need to strengthen neutrals from every caste; they are the important players to bring social reforms in the future. In my opinion, just by opposing people who follow casteism, one may not cause any constructive social reforms.

Cheers!

Am unable to reconcile the term "neutrals" with the term "caste". To me, neutrals maybe people who have given up all feelings of "caste". If so, then it may not possible to consider them as people who can "represent" any caste.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi Happy Hindu Ji,

I am a very simple man - simple minded too.

I consider you as my sister.

So, it is with astonishment, I am saying this. Why are you not accepting me, when I say who I am? Am I a casteist? Am I wrong when I claim that I am a 'brahmin' based on my family's culture? Seems to me that you want to question my lineage and culture, trying to prove that I am after all not a 'brahmin'. So be it. If you want to say that I am responsible for all the 'atrocities' perpetrated against who you call 'sudras', so be it. So, I am, because I may carry thye genes of my fore fathers, who might have done wrong, in the matter of caste warfare, or do I term it as the 'class warfare'?

You have every right as my sister to question my ancestry. What else can I say, except to say 'sorry' - the Gods did not see fit to let me be born as any other person than as this fictitious caste as a Brahmin, who has done all the wrongs to shape a Hindu society. What else I can do except to apologize for my present birth, ad infinitum, because some of my Fore Fathers might have been racists? So, go ahead. Strip me of my culture and are you happy?

But, please, in the mean time, listen me out.

I am born in to a 'Brahmin' family, because that is what my Parents and Grand Parents told me. I am saying that MY FOREFATHERS were Brahmins based on this alone. They may have been fishermen, for all I know. As I am not feeling any superiority over others, does this really matter?

I am not arguing about any others - I am arguing about what I think who I am. To me, 'Brahmin' is not about Dharma Shastras. It is about the ideals of our religion. Because of stories like Satyakama, I think that a Brahmin was based on conduct alone at one time, not on birth.

I do not call anyone a Shudra. But, please do not tell me that I am not born in to a culture called Brahmin culture! I was and that is a unique culture. Just because you insist that the definition is from Dharma Shastras, which I reject, does not mean that there is not a culture called 'Tamil Brahmin'. With all due respect, I think your animosity towards casteism is not allowing you to see that the 'Tamil Brahmins' of today have their own unique culture. This is the fact. As I have said, like Chettiars, etc. So, you don't want to call us 'Brahmins'. How else you would like to laqbel us? Oppressors? People who are evil? People who have no right to call themselves 'Brahmins'?

I would not club all the 'orthodox' as the 'oppressors'. It is quite complex. Labeling a whole community as oppressors is, in my view not correct.

Equality of men, personal freedoms etc. are today's concepts. I have a problem applying them to the past. Knowledge and civilization progresses over time. I find your view that the whole community called Brahmins responsible for a conduct that is looked upon with today's mores invalid. You are espousing views that were expressed in the book 'why I am not a Hindu?'.

Eliminating 'corruption' in religion is not done by throwing out commonly used words. I only wish that can be true. Do you really think that by eliminating the word 'Brahmin', you will destry somehow all the casteism in our religion, across the board? Seriously, this is not solely about the evil Brahmins alone. This guna and hierarchical nonsense is everywhere. I bet you that if you eliminate the word 'Brahmins' you will somehow find some in other castes trying to lord over others. The solution is not about twiddling with terms. It is about through education changing the hearts and minds.

Regards,
KRS

 

[tks]

Dear Sri tks Ji,
Thank you for your kind words.

I don't know what comments I have posted that you do not agree with!

Regards,
KRS

KRS-ji -

Being a vegetarian or not really does not have anything to with a culture these days though people I grew up with were vegetarians (at least I thought so).

If someone were to seek my suggestions regardless of their background or culture I would suggest them to become vegetarians. A person aspiring for higher knowledge need to develop their Satvic qualities and one of the necessary but not suffient condition to develop such qualities is to be a vegetarian.

In our tradition there are no commandments for anything and there are strong reasons why this is so (huge topic by itself). The closest guidance comes from the statement "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" and is applicable to all beings in a universal sense. There are a few situations where meat eating for self survival may be the right thing to do based on this principle, however human beings do have choice on what they are able to eat. With appropriate teaching one can follow vegetraianism for the right reasons and other benefits such as health & better environment will follow as by-product benefit.

I am not sure where you stand on this topic. We dont want to call NV names since that is wrong (and is a Himsa) but we might want to guide those who are seeking options towards Vegetarianism based on the principle of Ahimsa.

In today's age we have people who may be nasty to others and be vegetarians. And we may have people who are raised non-vegetarians but Satvic by nature. I would take the second group to get to know any time over the first group. In a comparison context the Sikh holy book that you cited may be favoring NV. I am not sure if it promoted NV and if it did so be it - I dont agree with it.

Great minds of modern era include people like Newton and Einstein (who I consider as Rishis). They were Vegetarians out of choice.

If you were promoting NV then that is the point where I would be disagreeing with you.

Reagrds,
TKS

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Srimathi Happy Hindu Ji,

I am a very simple man - simple minded too.

I consider you as my sister.

So, it is with astonishment, I am saying this. Why are you not accepting me, when I say who I am? Am I a casteist? Am I wrong when I claim that I am a 'brahmin' based on my family's culture? Seems to me that you want to question my lineage and culture, trying to prove that I am after all not a 'brahmin'. So be it.

Dear Sir, i really do not understand this. I have never considered you a casteist. Also seriously and sincerely i do not know how can a word 'brahmin" be associated with culture? Sir, lets say you were to describe your culture to an ethnographer, how would you describe it? Please all i request is for everyone to be factually correct.

If you want to say that I am responsible for all the 'atrocities' perpetrated against who you call 'sudras', so be it. So, I am, because I may carry thye genes of my fore fathers, who might have done wrong, in the matter of caste warfare, or do I term it as the 'class warfare'?

Again sir, this baffles me. All i can request you is to not to take it personally. It is impossible for me to assign any atrocities to you or to your forefathers. Simply because there is no single individual who can claim to have descended intact specifically from any one person or group alone.

It also baffles me how can a present-day 'dalit' associate himself with Shambhuka or how can a self-appointed 'kshatriya' associate himelf with Rama. Similarly it baffles me how can anyone claim to have descended intact either from the war-mongering 'brahmins' of dharmashatras, or from anthanar philosophers or from anywhere at all.

I have no idea what tribes are associated with your gene markers. Even if i knew all i cud possibly tell you is something on the myriad, wide-ranging and interesting cultures that probably or hypothetically might be associated with your ancestry. So as you can see sir, in every case (that is, from the cultural, social and genetic pov), it is impossible for me or anyone to hold you or any individual as a direct descendent of the 'brahmins' of the dharmashastras. Much less, hold you or anyone responsible for any "atrocities against shudras".

You have every right as my sister to question my ancestry. What else can I say, except to say 'sorry' - the Gods did not see fit to let me be born as any other person than as this fictitious caste as a Brahmin, who has done all the wrongs to shape a Hindu society.

Sir please i think you are getting me wrong. There is one reason why i do not speak to some people about caste anymore. Because they are emotional people. I too am emotional. But mostly until now i have been able to get rid of it and be factual. If you are emotional about this, please i suggest that we drop this conversation for now, give ourselves a cool-off period and resume it later.

What else I can do except to apologize for my present birth, ad infinitum, because some of my Fore Fathers might have been racists?

Sir please why are you apologising, for what. You yourself have said your parents and grandparents were not casteists, neither are you. Then why are you aplogising on the behalf of some ancestors (both imagined and known) who were not your ancestors alone?

So, go ahead. Strip me of my culture and are you happy?

It is impossible for me or any individual to strip anyone of their culture.

But, please, in the mean time, listen me out.

I am born in to a 'Brahmin' family, because that is what my Parents and Grand Parents told me. I am saying that MY FOREFATHERS were Brahmins based on this alone. They may have been fishermen, for all I know. As I am not feeling any superiority over others, does this really matter?

No one knows who anyone's ancient ancestors were. All of us have descended from men who were fishermen and hunters in the megalithic period. Early cultures must have been centered around water bodies, totemic fish, etc. All am saying is one cannot say for sure "who's ancestor(s) professed what occupation(s)".

As regards priests, they do go into an alter state of mind during certain rituals; and experience the timelessness of brahman (some of us may do so when we meditate perhaps). Therefore the priests are brahmins. But a priest is a brahmin in his individual capacity. How can any culture be labelled as 'brahmin'?

Sir, please i can only speak based on what i have come across. It wud do me good to know if i have missed some point, or if i have missed reading something crucial.

I am not arguing about any others - I am arguing about what I think who I am. To me, 'Brahmin' is not about Dharma Shastras. It is about the ideals of our religion. Because of stories like Satyakama, I think that a Brahmin was based on conduct alone at one time, not on birth.

Sir, Satyakama is just one odd example (and notably so because he was asked his gotra before being considered for admission. To me it is anomalous that this story is in chandogya upanishad).

Please, i do not think there was ever a system where one was recruited into the chaturvarana system based on temperment. Whatever is called the chaturvarna is only from the dharmashastras; with support from Jaimini's Purvamimansa.

Added note: If there was chaturvarna system based on temperment (and not by birth), please i request you to elaborate on it (without ascribing motives to me please). When did it exist?

I do not call anyone a Shudra. But, please do not tell me that I am not born in to a culture called Brahmin culture! I was and that is a unique culture.

Sir, please again you are repeating this without specifying how can a culture be brahmin. So please first explain what is a "brahmin" culture?

Just because you insist that the definition is from Dharma Shastras, which I reject, does not mean that there is not a culture called 'Tamil Brahmin'.

Sir, why should i "insist"? It is true that chaturvarna is from the dharmashastras. Am i claiming something that is false (or something on my own); and insisting on it?

Yet Again sir, please can you explain how there is a culture called "brahmin" culture ?

With all due respect, I think your animosity towards casteism is not allowing you to see that the 'Tamil Brahmins' of today have their own unique culture. This is the fact. As I have said, like Chettiars, etc. So, you don't want to call us 'Brahmins'. How else you would like to laqbel us? Oppressors? People who are evil? People who have no right to call themselves 'Brahmins'?

Goodness. Alright sir if you think i have some animosity it is difficult for me to reason out. So i leave you to your assumptions. All i can say is no sane person wud label any community as oppressors, or evil.

When it comes to the word "brahmin", it has a specific meaning. It is not some cufflink which anyone and everyone can wear. Lets say i am the son of a kalamukha acharya, how can i claim to belong to the "brahmin" culture? I can claim to belong to the culture of kalamukhas. But how can i claim to be a brahmin myself when i do not even practice that culture?

Perhaps later you can explain to me how a "smartha" becomes a "brahmin culture"? So far as i understand, the komati, nagarathar, balija, gavara, are not claiming to belong to any "vaishya culture". Some may claim to be "vaishya" varna.. But none of them claim that their culture is called "vaishya culture".

Please can you explain what is "brahmin culture", "kshatriya culture", "vaishya culture" and "shudra culture"?

I would not club all the 'orthodox' as the 'oppressors'. It is quite complex. Labeling a whole community as oppressors is, in my view not correct.

Sir i have not labelled the orthodox as oppressors, nor have i ever-ever labelled any whole community as oppressors.

Equality of men, personal freedoms etc. are today's concepts. I have a problem applying them to the past. Knowledge and civilization progresses over time.

I disagree. If we take a look at the tribal structures of the past, men were not fixed into some rigid box slots based on occupations. Nor do we find folks being punished for trying to learn something in tribal societies. Early man did have the concept of equality for men and personal freedom.

Tribal janapadas sought to conquer each other and arrest the opponents' freedom by conquering them and subjugating them. The fact that they sought to defend themselves, and fend off subjugation, itself means people had the concept of personal freedom which they did not want to loose.

Caste system is defined by the Smrithis. The dharmashastras fixed punishments for shudras / dasas who tried to learn vedas, accumulate money, or basically have a life. It was certainly an oppressive system by the mores of any past or present day standards. Justifying such a system (while dubbing equality of men as "today's" concepts) is like justifying slavery of the past.

I find your view that the whole community called Brahmins responsible for a conduct that is looked upon with today's mores invalid. You are espousing views that were expressed in the book 'why I am not a Hindu?'.

I completely disagree. To me this is just a sheer allegation. Please let me know where have i said that the "whole community" of brahmins are responsible for a conduct looked down upon by the mores of the past or present or by any standard. Which are the views i am espousing from the book 'why i am not a hindu'?

Eliminating 'corruption' in religion is not done by throwing out commonly used words. I only wish that can be true. Do you really think that by eliminating the word 'Brahmin', you will destry somehow all the casteism in our religion, across the board?

Now possibly i can claim to be "Parahamansa" and tell everyone that it is a "respectable thing" for them to accept me as such. Please sir, i think it is pretty much evident that every word has a specific meaning. Everyone cannot name themselves anyways as they please. I have never ever said that the word "brahmin" should be eliminated. If falsified claims have lead to corruption in the religion and contributed to casteism, then yes i think being factual will help lessen casteism.

Seriously, this is not solely about the evil Brahmins alone.

Nowhere have i ever used the term "evil brahmins". I thot i already mentioned that the actions of 'uppercastes' (NBs) are wrong and about the bania-kshatriya-brahman nexus, and have time and again put down those (NBs) who practice casteism in various posts.

This guna and hierarchical nonsense is everywhere. I bet you that if you eliminate the word 'Brahmins' you will somehow find some in other castes trying to lord over others. The solution is not about twiddling with terms. It is about through education changing the hearts and minds.

I have never said that the word "brahmins" must be eliminated. Nor have i twindled with terms. On the contrary, i think i am adressing "obfuscation" created by people.

If vedic education is allowed for all, no one will dare meddle with one another on the basis of "caste". The current situation of modernity and present day law will further ensure no one can enforce (or lord) themselves upon another.

Regards.

 

[subbudu1]

In this discussion there are two points of view, one represented by Happy Hindu and one represented by Tks, KRs etc. But there are actually many things each person is saying.

Happy Hindu talks about the flaws in dharmashastra. The definition of being brahmin is another thing she talks about. She is also talking about caste conversion and a kind of hijacking of a brahmin title. She is also talking about the possibility that essentially brahmins of today are just not really any so called descendants of some vedic and upanishad brahmins. Fair points.

The other side is talking about a unique culture that has got associated with this term called tamil brahmin culture. This is the only generic label that transcends narrow boundaries of subcaste, subsect , dialect, philosophy . country etc. Fair points.

There is I think, pardon me Happy Hindu, if I am wrong. I think Happy Hindu raised an important question. Until modern times there was a definition of brahmin. It was not just nobel , educated etc. This title was revered throughout India. Whether somebody justly called himself a brahmin remains disputable. But she has said somewhere that she reveres the usage of this word. This cannot be loosely used she said. There are one group of people who really deserve this title like some yogis and swamijis. There are others who do nothing to justify this title yet call themselves brahmin. This I think is the main reason why she is not able to accept the views of KRS.Pardon me again Happy Hindu if I am wrong in assuming so.

This questioning of Happy Hindu cannot be answered by the people here without some deal of hypocrisy. Nara here is the only person who has replied without any deal of hypocrisy to Happy Hindu's questions. He has questioned whether we should call ourselves brahmin, but of course by explaining the negative connotations of that word.

Many years back when I was more conventional, I though a brahmin, had the same question, whether I really deserved to call myself a brahmin. It was not about ethnicity. It was about the pursuit of my life. I am a vegetarian and a hindu. I have many habits which might make me look favorable in some people's eyes. But the goal of life? That is what Happy Hindu is driving at. Of course she mentions different other things such as vedas for all etc, for which many here have no objection. There are options today for non brahmins to study vedas.

But I have been confronted by this essential questioning of hers, many years earlier. I pushed this to the back of my head and this has come to haunt me again. Thank you Happy Hindu. You have put a question which I wanted to ask to myself and other so called brahmins. But never either had the courage or the intensity to pursue this question!

 

[happyhindu]

Shri Subbudu,

I think the main points of contention are:

TKS, KRS:
[Please correct me if this is wrong]

1) There is something called brahmin culture, so people are brahmins based on that culture.
2) They have descended from brahmins of dharmashastras and hence they are brahmins.
3) In the beginning varnas were based on temperment and not by birth.

Me:
1) How can any culture be called a "brahmin" culture? How can anyone claim to be a "brahmin" based on culture? A "brahmin" is position of reverence given to a vipra well versed in upanishads and to priests who live life as brahmins, not to just any individual in the secular world just like that. If an individual is not a vipra or a priest how can he claim to be a brahmin?
2) On what basis can any present day brahmin claim to have descended from the brahmins of dharmashastras?
3) When did a varna system based on temperment alone (and not birth) exist?

Apart from these 3 points there are several sub-points or issues. Am sorry to say that neither TKS or KRS ji answered any of my questions. Shri TKS was evasive and turned accusative. He accussed me of delivering "unflattering insinuations" and being disrespectful to him; and ofcourse did not answer any question. The moderator did not intervene in post 110 and i too have now left it.

Now Shri KRS ji also has become personal and thinks i am questioning his personal lineage and feels am out to strip him of his heritage. Raju on the other hand chose not to answer any of the questions raised in another thread and chose to exit the conversation gracefully though with a small potshot.

I suppose no introspection by any of us is ever needed.

Regards.

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu,

I think the main points of contention are:

TKS, KRS:
[Please correct me if this is wrong]

1) There is something called brahmin culture, so people are brahmins based on that culture.
2) They have descended from brahmins of dharmashastras and hence they are brahmins.
3) In the beginning varnas were based on temperment and not by birth.

Me:
1) How can any culture be called a "brahmin" culture? How can anyone claim to be a "brahmin" based on culture? A "brahmin" is position of reverence given to a vipra well versed in upanishads and to priests who live life as brahmins, not to just any individual in the secular world just like that. If an individual is not a vipra or a priest how can he claim to be a brahmin?
2) On what basis can any present day brahmin claim to have descended from the brahmins of dharmashastras?
3) When did a varna system based on temperment alone (and not birth) exist?

Apart from these 3 points there are several sub-points or issues. Am sorry to say that neither TKS or KRS ji answered any of my questions. Shri TKS was evasive and turned accusative. He accussed me of delivering "unflattering insinuations" and being disrespectful to him; and ofcourse did not answer any question. The moderator did not intervene in post 110 and i too have now left it.

Now Shri KRS ji also has become personal and thinks i am questioning his personal lineage and feels am out to strip him of his heritage. Raju on the other hand chose not to answer any of the questions raised in another thread and chose to exit the conversation gracefully though with a small potshot.

I suppose no introspection by any of us is ever needed.

Regards.

2) They have descended from brahmins of dharmashastras and hence they are brahmins.

I think KRS said he does not care whether they were this or that what matters to him is the cultural identity of a group who go by the term tamil brahmins. So we can leave this point 2 out of contention.

How can any culture be called a "brahmin" culture? How can anyone claim to be a "brahmin" based on culture? A "brahmin" is position of reverence given to a vipra well versed in upanishads and to priests who live life as brahmins, not to just any individual in the secular world just like that. If an individual is not a vipra or a priest how can he claim to be a brahmin?

This is also my summary of your important view. This is the toughest question you could ask.
It is not a trivial question because whether modern TB like it or not, this is a matter of importance to millions of people. Since childhood Bs have been fashioning out a meaning of a brahmin, as we change with time. But the term is so important to our religion that Vedanta is full of these words. If you dont believe vedanta fine. If you do it becomes important. So anybody cant fashion a new meaning , new goal based on this term. It is not about living life like a brahmin is good or bad. It is claiming to be something you are not. We have all different views no doubt. But the average hindu and some westerners think that brahmin is supposed to be a man whose main goal is to know god. We can choose to say we are the B Culture. This will pin us down. We have to answer for the dharmashastras then. Why do you want to answer for it if you dont believe it. In other cases somebody respects you, raises their eyebrows when you say I am a B. That is because they think you are a puja guy. My brother wore a panchagacham and went to nadi to do some prayers. Immediately a local person fell at his feet. There is some kind of cheating here- I think the taking over of a title which is important to majority of hindus.

It is very important to evaluate this sincerely , if we respect the sentiments of millions of hindus.

We may start with calling ourselves as a brahm instead of brahmin. How about that for a start to rationalize our minds? You can use the full word once you feel you are living by it?

 

[gopaindu]

qualification for a tamil brahmin

I also joined this forum newly like you. Dont worry so much if we are fair, simple,hardworking,honest it is good. If we can pass this to our children then we have passed down tamil brahmin heritage.

The real qualification for any Brahmin is to follow truth in thought, speech and action. Treat everybody equal. Be honest and obey concience which is deemed to be impartial according to the shastras.Be well wisher of others in distress/problems and try to help either monetarily or thought out advice. Last but not the least believer in God. For tamil brahmin, your mother tongue should be tamil. If you are able to read and write sanskrit it would be better. (N.Rajagopalan, joined the forum today.

 

[Nara]

The real qualification for any Brahmin is to follow truth in thought, speech and action. Treat everybody equal. Be honest and obey concience which is deemed to be impartial according to the shastras.Be well wisher of others in distress/problems and try to help either monetarily or thought out advice. Last but not the least believer in God. For tamil brahmin, your mother tongue should be tamil. If you are able to read and write sanskrit it would be better. (N.Rajagopalan, joined the forum today.

Dear Shri NR, Greetings and welcome to the forum!

Sir, what you have stated above are qualifications for a decent human being. I see no value added to say those who meet these criteria are "Brahmins", a term that has only one practical meaning, Brahmin caste -- this is what everyone understands except probably one or two people here and there.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

happy,

here is my take on your query to KRS re 'brahmin' identity. very briefly.

as far as i can understand, to him, it is an identity - like a chettiar or pillai. that this idenityt comes with a heritage of its own, he accepts willingly, and will not question whether there were rights or wrongs intrinsically embedded in it.

to whom, the word or lineage of brahmin is fraught with a heavily embedded meaning - not only it is a lineage (at which i beleive that KRS stgos) but also a term of influence and one who could not only sway the community values, but also called the shots on society's attitudes towards its various groups. all from a sense of entitlement, which may or may not be deserved.

fondly yours truly

 

[kunjuppu]

Yamaka,

as an outsider how do you view this thread? i am quite sure you can walk the waters without stirring up the dirt. this i say maninly based on your mastery of the english language, your stay in the usa and above all being married to a tambram lady.

so you probably had opportunity to watch our community at close quarters, and yet not bea part of it.

i am quite sure that members here are mature enough to be able to digest your views without any resulting dyspepsia

 

[kunjuppu]

In this discussion there are two points of view, one represented by Happy Hindu and one represented by Tks, KRs etc. But there are actually many things each person is saying.

Happy Hindu talks about the flaws in dharmashastra. The definition of being brahmin is another thing she talks about. She is also talking about caste conversion and a kind of hijacking of a brahmin title. She is also talking about the possibility that essentially brahmins of today are just not really any so called descendants of some vedic and upanishad brahmins. Fair points.

The other side is talking about a unique culture that has got associated with this term called tamil brahmin culture. This is the only generic label that transcends narrow boundaries of subcaste, subsect , dialect, philosophy . country etc. Fair points.

There is I think, pardon me Happy Hindu, if I am wrong. I think Happy Hindu raised an important question. Until modern times there was a definition of brahmin. It was not just nobel , educated etc. This title was revered throughout India. Whether somebody justly called himself a brahmin remains disputable. But she has said somewhere that she reveres the usage of this word. This cannot be loosely used she said. There are one group of people who really deserve this title like some yogis and swamijis. There are others who do nothing to justify this title yet call themselves brahmin. This I think is the main reason why she is not able to accept the views of KRS.Pardon me again Happy Hindu if I am wrong in assuming so.

This questioning of Happy Hindu cannot be answered by the people here without some deal of hypocrisy. Nara here is the only person who has replied without any deal of hypocrisy to Happy Hindu's questions. He has questioned whether we should call ourselves brahmin, but of course by explaining the negative connotations of that word.

Many years back when I was more conventional, I though a brahmin, had the same question, whether I really deserved to call myself a brahmin. It was not about ethnicity. It was about the pursuit of my life. I am a vegetarian and a hindu. I have many habits which might make me look favorable in some people's eyes. But the goal of life? That is what Happy Hindu is driving at. Of course she mentions different other things such as vedas for all etc, for which many here have no objection. There are options today for non brahmins to study vedas.

But I have been confronted by this essential questioning of hers, many years earlier. I pushed this to the back of my head and this has come to haunt me again. Thank you Happy Hindu. You have put a question which I wanted to ask to myself and other so called brahmins. But never either had the courage or the intensity to pursue this question!

subbudu,

excellent post. i remember iin my childhood, it was a source of self appreciative pride for my dad and others of his ilk, to boast themselves as 'brahmanans'. shudras were usually dismissed as shoodras, something non consequential, no matter how accomplished these were.

i remember once, a group of them were talking about M.S.Subbulakshmi. the tone was one of regret that she was a soodhrachchi, compared to OUR MLV a pucca blue blooded brahmin.

in the i context, to water down the term of the nomenclature 'brahmin' to just one of lineage and discard the heavily laid baggage that one has to carry now, just does come out more confusing. we need to come up with a new name for folks like KRS - one group can call themselves 'lineage brahmins' and the other as 'caste brahmin'.

this i say, because folks like KRS are indeed very liberal and tolerant of other castes, and to the best of my knowledge, would have no objection to ic or ir marriages within the family. while folks like me have no qualms about blessing my ancestors with some dose of villainness, such attributes are not acceptable to KRS, from what i gather of his posts. still he and i are very close in our social attitudes, and eons away from those of the orthodoxy who oppose everything from intermixing, sociallsing and ic marriages.

 

[kunjuppu]

Dear Srimathi Happy Hindu Ji,

I am a very simple man - simple minded too....

KRS

KRS, with reservations, i will accept you as a 'simple man' in its most favoured and blessed terminology.

but 'simple minded'?

sir you have got to be kidding!! no way jose !

 

[subbudu1]

subbudu,

excellent post. i remember iin my childhood, it was a source of self appreciative pride for my dad and others of his ilk, to boast themselves as 'brahmanans'. shudras were usually dismissed as shoodras, something non consequential, no matter how accomplished these were.

i remember once, a group of them were talking about M.S.Subbulakshmi. the tone was one of regret that she was a soodhrachchi, compared to OUR MLV a pucca blue blooded brahmin.

in the i context, to water down the term of the nomenclature 'brahmin' to just one of lineage and discard the heavily laid baggage that one has to carry now, just does come out more confusing. we need to come up with a new name for folks like KRS - one group can call themselves 'lineage brahmins' and the other as 'caste brahmin'.

this i say, because folks like KRS are indeed very liberal and tolerant of other castes, and to the best of my knowledge, would have no objection to ic or ir marriages within the family. while folks like me have no qualms about blessing my ancestors with some dose of villainness, such attributes are not acceptable to KRS, from what i gather of his posts. still he and i are very close in our social attitudes, and eons away from those of the orthodoxy who oppose everything from intermixing, sociallsing and ic marriages.

The best thing is to call ourselves as Tambrams and just stick to it without making it any grander by qualifying it as brahmin etc. Tambrams can include anybody married to a tambram and anyone who feels like a tambram. And if anyone asks are u a brahmin? Just say if a normal good human is a brahmin then I am otherwise I am not. Or say I am not a brahmin. Both statements will be true otherwise it is not true.Period. Let us not bring this lineage brahmins etc etc and confuse things.
What about your ancestors? You can best say - They thought they were brahmins but I dont know.

Moment we say or feel that we are a brahmin , we will be asked these tough questions on shastras etc. Those who want to go by the word brahmana or brahmin be prepared to answer questions that crop up. It is natural because this word has acquired a huge level of respect and hatred. Isnt it like a title called doctor or engineer. In India all these went hereditary but got secularized. Brahmin is the last one not to be fully secularized?

 

[Nara]

.....1) There is something called brahmin culture, so people are brahmins based on that culture..

Dear Happy,
I am not sure there is a "Brahmin Culture" that is unique to just Brahmins alone. There are some aspects that are uniquely Brahmin, and many they share with everyone else. Those that are uniquely Brahmin often include practices that are designed to exclude, e.g. samskaras like upanayanam that are denied to others. Insisting on these exclusionary practices as part of ones identity is short-sighted and counterproductive for the long term well being of the Brahmins themselves.

Also, there is no single culture among all Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, let alone all of India. The language, cuisine, worship, and even the way the women wear kaccham are so different between not only Iyers and Iyengars, but even between Vadakalai and Thenkalai Iyengars. Even within a particular Iyengar sect, there are major regional differences. Simply put, the "culture" of a Vadkalai Iyengar from North Arcot district is very different from that of Vadama Iyer "culture", not to mention Palaghat Pattar "culture".

In the U.S. every immigrant group sooner or later learn to subordinate their ethnic identity to that of an American identity. This is why the American culture is supposed to be a melting pot. If the Brahmins follow a somewhat similar approach, one in which they follow the cultural practices, but do away with the term Brahmin that comes with, like it or not, huge baggage, that may serve them well.

Cheers!

 

[subbudu1]

subbudu,

i remember once, a group of them were talking about M.S.Subbulakshmi. the tone was one of regret that she was a soodhrachchi, compared to OUR MLV a pucca blue blooded brahmin..

Yes yes I know and the mami gossips include ( as told by my wife) - "Do you know ms had affair with Nehru?"

But seriously without her story known to all, she would be passed as a TB.

 

[renuka]

Hey Guys..take a break!!!

Check this out..Non Brahmin(SRK) dancing with Brahmin(Deepika) all for the sake of Billu Barber..see such caste unity..so Love is surely Hit Hit!!!

YouTube - Love Mera Hit Hit *FULL VIDEO*

 

[kunjuppu]

subbudu,

tambram is a good term. i use it myself here. it largely removes the religiosity, and is more understood as an ethnic identification, which i think, is just what we want. for starters.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri tks Ji,

I consider diet, like religion is a personal affair today. I do not promote any particular diet today, as I have come across all kinds of people whose character and personalities have no connections to any diets as far as I know.

I know that vegetarianism is recommended to get seriously in to meditation and the like.

Cultures do influence diets. Both Jews and Muslims do not eat pork, for example.

On the same token, I do not consider NV diet as anything evil.

Regards,
KRS

KRS-ji -

Being a vegetarian or not really does not have anything to with a culture these days though people I grew up with were vegetarians (at least I thought so).

If someone were to seek my suggestions regardless of their background or culture I would suggest them to become vegetarians. A person aspiring for higher knowledge need to develop their Satvic qualities and one of the necessary but not suffient condition to develop such qualities is to be a vegetarian.

In our tradition there are no commandments for anything and there are strong reasons why this is so (huge topic by itself). The closest guidance comes from the statement "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" and is applicable to all beings in a universal sense. There are a few situations where meat eating for self survival may be the right thing to do based on this principle, however human beings do have choice on what they are able to eat. With appropriate teaching one can follow vegetraianism for the right reasons and other benefits such as health & better environment will follow as by-product benefit.

I am not sure where you stand on this topic. We dont want to call NV names since that is wrong (and is a Himsa) but we might want to guide those who are seeking options towards Vegetarianism based on the principle of Ahimsa.

In today's age we have people who may be nasty to others and be vegetarians. And we may have people who are raised non-vegetarians but Satvic by nature. I would take the second group to get to know any time over the first group. In a comparison context the Sikh holy book that you cited may be favoring NV. I am not sure if it promoted NV and if it did so be it - I dont agree with it.

Great minds of modern era include people like Newton and Einstein (who I consider as Rishis). They were Vegetarians out of choice.

If you were promoting NV then that is the point where I would be disagreeing with you.

Reagrds,
TKS

 

[sangom]

Whether I am/you are a brahmana is a matter to be judged by others, not one to be trumpeted by means of dress, other signs like sacred ash/naamam and through other devices by the individuals concerned, IMHO. Let tabras (tambrams) be as they have been hotherto and leave the judgment to others - why are we not able to accept this? To me it is because each one of us innately feels that we are not behaving in such a manner as to qualify as tabra/tambram in the eyes of others; and that very guilty feeling is causing this query, this doubt to be raised again and again, and yet again in this forum itself.

So my suggestion is, first decide for yourself what will make you qualify for your being recognised as a tabra/tambram, live scrupulously according to that and leave the judgment to the world.

 

[tks]

Dear Sri tks Ji,

I consider diet, like religion is a personal affair today. I do not promote any particular diet today, as I have come across all kinds of people whose character and personalities have no connections to any diets as far as I know.

I know that vegetarianism is recommended to get seriously in to meditation and the like.

Cultures do influence diets. Both Jews and Muslims do not eat pork, for example.

On the same token, I do not consider NV diet as anything evil.

Regards,
KRS

KRS ji -

Thanks for shating your views on this topic. I tend to think diet is a personal affair too and do not pass any judgement based on their choice. I cant see anything to disagree with you!

If anyone were to ask with sincerity why I am a vegetarian then I would share my reasons. If they further want suggestions I would engage in promoting vegetarianism.

After finding out how cows are harmed for their entire life in factory farms that 'produce' more cows and milk, I am against Hindu temples doing Milk & Dahi Abhishekam in this country (USA). I have minimized consumption of regular milk and moved to use Soy Milk when possible

Regards,
TKS

 

[Yamaka]

Yamaka,

as an outsider how do you view this thread? i am quite sure you can walk the waters without stirring up the dirt. this i say maninly based on your mastery of the english language, your stay in the usa and above all being married to a tambram lady.

so you probably had opportunity to watch our community at close quarters, and yet not bea part of it.

i am quite sure that members here are mature enough to be able to digest your views without any resulting dyspepsia

Dear K:

To tell you the truth, I am very comfortable with the Thread... because I feel I have met many of you in person and talked at length about dozens of issues......

As in any other community -Tamil Muslims, Tamil Christians, NBs like Chettiers, Mudaliars - you have Religious Fundamentalists, Religious Supramacists and Pragamatists among TBs.

Many talk about their diet (primarily vegetarian) and justify why it is superior to other diets. All discussions are very well within the realm of Reality and Practicality.

Answering the question raised in this particular Thread:

Anyone who claims to be a TB is a TB - must know Tamil and born to a Brahmin family - perhaps one of the parents need to be brahmins, IMO..

If my kids claim to be TBs, then they are TBs, I don't have any qualms about it. Likewise, a person born to a Brahmin family and knows Tamil, but refuses to be called a TB, then he is not a TB, IMO.

You see, one has to claim their "title" or "status" or "label" or "sub-grouping"... that's key.

I am not a Brahmin, but a Tamil (speaking many times the Madurai Tamil - Sanga Tamil).

Nice knowing you all,

Cheers.

Regards.

Y