Dear Sir,
First i thank you for the reply and i sincerely hope you have no animosity towards me.
I think I am being factual, when I say that I am a Tamil Brahmin. Please google 'Tamil Brahmin' and you will see that it is a culture based on information, from Wiki to Brittanica.
From the attire, diet, celebrating some unique festivals, coming of age ceremonies, upanayanams, weddings, birth and death ceremonies, etc. etc., this culture is unique as any other culture in Tamil Nadu, like Chettiars, Mudaliars, so called Dalits, etc. Please tell me that this is not true, because this has been the crux of my posting, when I am talking about a ;Brahmin' culture today.
Everyone would agree with you that culture means wearing clothing of a certain kind, performing certain samskaras or rituals, and oberving certain practices. These may vary widely from place to place, group to group. Please may i ask how did these practices come to be labelled brahmin-culture? Or rather a culture followed by 'brahmins'?
Also sir, all these pertains to a culture in terms of external symbols and practices. Anyone can adopt these symbols and practices or give them up. Simply by wearing a panchagaccham, poonul, doing gayatri japam or performing some ceremonies, does a man qualify to be a brahmin? If so, then the whole of india can do this and claim to be brahmins. Is it not?
Next we come the main question. What if a man is not doing such pujas? Can he claim to be a 'brahmin' ?
My question to you is this: Do you deny this? Do you think that I was not born in to this culture (or sub culture if you prefer)?
Please sir i have no authority to deny or accept anything. I am merely going by the shastras and comparing it against what history says.
Dear sister, I am not at all emotional about my caste or anything else. FYI, I was married to an American Jew. Both my sons are not married to Tam Brahm girls. I do not evaluate folks on their ethicity and religion. But thye funny thing is, I approach all this from a vantage pov os a tamil Brahmin. As Professor Nara Ji has said, somehow I have worked out all these contradicting elements in to something that works for me. I suspect, the basis is my prime allegiance to humanity and humanism as the first principle.
I think Shri Nara summed things up perfectly in his
post # 147.
It is because I am interacting with you, who is not a 'Jathi Brahmin'. I do not want to offend your sensibilities. I know too well what some of my Fore Fathers have done.
Sir, by using the term jathi-brahmin are you saying there is some term called 'jathi-brahmin" which is different from a "varna-brahmin" ? Also sir, i seriously do not understand why you would apologise on the behalf of your forefathers (of the 'dharmashastras' i persume). Please am unable to accept an apology for some long lost ancestors from which neither yourself nor myself can claim direct descent; or perhaps we have no connection with them at all.
You must be aware that Devendrakula Vellars have constructed their geneology such that they claim to be descendents of Indra and devas. Perhaps they should apologise to all present-day brahmins because it would mean that their (imagined) forefathers such as Indra killed brahmins like Vritra. Quite apparently it makes no sense. Because the claims of the Devendrakula Vellalars are baseless.
I agree with you. My definition of my culture does not extend beyond my great grand parents. This is where I think citing Professor Nara Ji's comments on America as a 'melting pot' is appropriate.
In America, yes, over time the country makes you to identify as an American first. But this does not mean that all different ethnic identities are discarded. In fact, such diversities as Jewish Americans, Italian Americans, Mexican Americans etc. are celebrated.
why can we not allow for the same secular differences in India?
Definitely sir, people will have differences based on several issues. But why should differences based on "caste" remain?
You may be right. But let us analyze this rationally. Do you think thazt a whole society, initially would have accepted this Varna division, if it was birth based? Sathyakama is but one example. I think, by logic, the Varna system evolved in to a birth based system. It has to be.
Unfortunately sir, no one needed to 'accept' varna divisions because it was 'imposed' upon people.
Again, can you tell me when this came about? You think that a minority of 9% convincing the majority that their off springs as well as others off springs are indeed have a right to their fathers' professions? This just a fantastic development at a single point in a society.
The percent of brahmins in india is 9% now. Please do not compare this with the past.
History says there were several kshatropeta dvijitayahs (priyatosh banerjee in his book "Early Indian Religions" calls the kshatropeta-dvijas as kshatriya-brahmana people or kshatriyas claiming to be brahmins). There were several armies claiming to be "brahmins" such as gargas, bharadvajas, vishnuvriddhas, kapis, priyamedhas, kanvas, haritas, shaunakas, etc. These were
armies who waged wars. There is no indication to show that their battalions were small. So i do not know how anyone can claim that the population of brahmins was always small, based on the population of present-day brahmins being 9%.
Going back in time, there is no word called 'kshatriya' in the rigveda except in the purushasukta which is considered a late-interpolation into the rigveda. Quite apparently the word 'kshatriya' was introduced into the Rigveda through the Purushasukta at a later date. Historians says there was no varna divisions in the vedic period (the 'vedic' people were still fighting against their enemies and had not yet conquered them).
We come across social classifications in the mahabharat where Indra (not Krishna) classed mlecchas, dasyus, etc. I feel no one can say for sure if mahabharata was the continuation of fights from the vedic period (some say Indra classing people in the Mahabharat was a late-interpolation as well).
But here comes the crux. Whatever we know as a proper varna-system with social division of 4 varnas is only from the dharmashastras. A proper system that imposed varna divisions based on occupations. It is futile to claim that varna and jati are two different things. Occupation defined varna and that was fixed as a birth-based Jati.
Now i feel no one can say for sure when each dharmashastra was written. In this i feel Shri Sangom can help you.
But one thing is clear, Manusmrithi was either written or interloped to favor brahmins in the time of Pushyamitra Sunga (So Manusmrithi belonged to Sunga dynasty). Sangom sir has already posted on this in detail.
For the rest of the dharmashastras, am lost wrt to the time-periods (apasthamba, boudhayana are considered 'early' smrithis though). So, Sangom sir, please clarify on this part. When were each of those very many smrithis written?
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?As I have said above, in addition to the stories of our Rishis, who were not Brahmins, and Sathyakama and the like, and based on the logic I have said above, yes, I have no other evidence. By the same token, may I ask you for your proof that the system started with a birth based edict?
Shri KRS ji, we really do not know if all rishis of the vedic-period were 'brahmins'. We do not know the reasons why Indra was killing some rishis. Also explained above that 4-varna division came about in the Dharmashastras only. And the birth-based edicts of manusmrithi (or other dharmashastras) was most certainly imposed on people. I do not think anyone will become a slave willingly.
As for the vedic period, some claim Vishwamitra was already a dvija (that is 'kshatriya). If so, then there was no need for him to fight with Vashista to be accepted as a brahmin, because he wud have been performing the necessary rituals required for a dvija. It is quite obvious that during that time there were no specific rituals that defined one as a brahmana. Vishwamitra did tapas to be considered a brahmana, and did not do rituals from morning to night. Also claiming that vishwamitra was a 'kshatriya' appears to be false (i wud like to be corrected on this if wrong).
Dear sister, simple. You are viewing the current day Brahmins with yesteryears' definition. There are very few Brahmins, if any left at all, who would fit this description of yours. It is a cuff link today. If you have not understood this, sorry, you are living in an imaginary world.
Sir i have most certainly understood that it is a cuff link today (or a 'brand name' if i were to go by RVR's arguments). Followers of Jaimini's purvamimansa claim that by doing some rituals, they become brahmins. But this is exactly what am questioning. If a man is not performing those rituals can he claim to be a brahmin? If yes, then it is obvious he wants to wear cuff links only for his ego and to make claims of a falsified social position for himself. In such case i might as well respect a man wearing nike shoes. Atleast it signifies the man has the ability to earn that money and provide such shoes for himself.
I am not inventing anything new here. The description comes directly fro my parents and grand parents.
Sir, am not saying you are inventing anything new here. I do not know on what basis your grandparents told you that there is something called 'brahmin culture or 'vaishya culture'. However, i leave it at this.
I have no idea about other cultures other than that of a 'brahmin' culture, because,that was what I was told growing up.
Quite apparently sir, if there is a brahmin-culture it cannot exist without an opposite counterpart as 'shudra-culture'. This merely means that along the way some people have corrupted the system so as to claim that certain practices are 'brahmin'. If so, then we must say that non-vegetarianism is brahmin culture or a brahmin practice since brahmanas in the vedic period were sacrificing and consuming meat.
Come on sister! You seriously equate this to thye modern concept of freedom?
Yes i do. Is it not correct?
No, I am not justifying anything. But what I am saying is that slavery etc. came about because of the mores of the past.
Sir there is a difference between something coming about on its own and something being imposed on people
.
Justice should be based on today. Not on the past. yes, we need to help those whe have been discriminated in the past. No issues.
I wholeheartedly agree.
But please, do not punish a community in the present who have nothing to do with the past. Is this too much to ask?
In what way is any community being punished today?
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'?
Dear Sister,
Please go over your past postings in this thread itself to understand what I am saying. If you can not, I can quote you from the past.
Sir, am aware i have made some statements in response to RVR's posts. However, i do request you to quote them. It will give me an opportunity to clarify what i meant. At the same time, please let me know which views i am espousing from the book 'why i am not a hindu'?
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. Dear Sister, again, you are mixing up things. You are again saying that if I call myself a 'Brahmin' then I am a casteist. That is the implication of what you have just said.
1) Sir, which part of this comes across to you as equating the word 'brahmin' to a 'casteist'?
2) As regards the claim, if each one can claim anything as they please, then surely i can claim to be a Paramahansa. But people will only laugh at me. Which i why i said everyone cannot claim things as per their wishes.
Regards.
