H
hariharan1972
Guest
Thank you Sir
KRS Sir,
I think, the longer your post, the wiser we will be and hence kindly don't worry about the length of your postings.
(I will be more happy if you kindly drop "Sir" & "Ji", you are welcome to address me by my name)
I want to explore a little more about your response to my last question. The essence of your response is that the 'wiser groups' have a responsibility towards the less privileged (i first thought of writing "underdogs", but some KKK member could read this & conclude that brahmins consider the lowest varna as dogs, so why the risk ?).
Now my queries are :
a) Is this "responsibility" implicit or explicit among the duties of the brahmins ?
b) Will i be right in concluding that any brahmin who has not contributed to 'social upliftment' hasn't performed some part of his duty ?
c) If the answer to (a) is "explicit", how come that this fact is not often emphasised ? Has this fact been “conveniently ignored” or are we victims of a planned, sustained hate campaign ?
d) Does answer to (c) lie in the fact that while this responsibility was "on paper" not enough was done by Brahmins in reality ? Ofcourse there are Adi Shankaracharyas, Ramanujars etc.. but one could argue that they were few & far & also that even people who follow the sect they created haven't exactly followed THIS aspect of brahmanism in their lives ?
e) when you juxtapose this responsibility with the fact that brahmins were generally opposed to under privileged's entry to temple etc... isn't it contradicting ? were these values "lost in transit" between generations ?
Wrt (d) & (e) let me clarify that i am referring to the general / common set of brahmins, i do realise & concede that the people who were in forefront of the under privileged's liberation struggle were all brahmins....i am only trying to understand the psyche of the ‘centuries’ general Brahmins
f) Finally in your view, how do you think the current generation of Brahmins should discharge this responsibility ?
KRS Sir,
I think, the longer your post, the wiser we will be and hence kindly don't worry about the length of your postings.
(I will be more happy if you kindly drop "Sir" & "Ji", you are welcome to address me by my name)
I want to explore a little more about your response to my last question. The essence of your response is that the 'wiser groups' have a responsibility towards the less privileged (i first thought of writing "underdogs", but some KKK member could read this & conclude that brahmins consider the lowest varna as dogs, so why the risk ?).
Now my queries are :
a) Is this "responsibility" implicit or explicit among the duties of the brahmins ?
b) Will i be right in concluding that any brahmin who has not contributed to 'social upliftment' hasn't performed some part of his duty ?
c) If the answer to (a) is "explicit", how come that this fact is not often emphasised ? Has this fact been “conveniently ignored” or are we victims of a planned, sustained hate campaign ?
d) Does answer to (c) lie in the fact that while this responsibility was "on paper" not enough was done by Brahmins in reality ? Ofcourse there are Adi Shankaracharyas, Ramanujars etc.. but one could argue that they were few & far & also that even people who follow the sect they created haven't exactly followed THIS aspect of brahmanism in their lives ?
e) when you juxtapose this responsibility with the fact that brahmins were generally opposed to under privileged's entry to temple etc... isn't it contradicting ? were these values "lost in transit" between generations ?
Wrt (d) & (e) let me clarify that i am referring to the general / common set of brahmins, i do realise & concede that the people who were in forefront of the under privileged's liberation struggle were all brahmins....i am only trying to understand the psyche of the ‘centuries’ general Brahmins
f) Finally in your view, how do you think the current generation of Brahmins should discharge this responsibility ?