Who are we?

[Vaylan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Guys - one constant characteristic we Brahmins have is internecine squabbling - can we all move beyond this please.

Let the respective members entertain beliefs that they are comfortable with.

I'm going to post some information that may shed some light on resolving this contentious issue. Till then can we all hold our peace.

 

[rxrajamo]

NARAS aka Suresh

I did not want to post this. But I have to post this to make some things clear to you and other forum members. We as moderators assure that we are totally apolitical and un-biased.

You were not demoted from a Senior member to a Junior member. A member needs to have a certain number of postings to become a senior member. It goes by member id. It is a common feature in many forums. It is all done by default forum scripts. When you changed your avatar and registered as a new member, you started a new account. So your new count starts from then. I can assure you that, as moderators we did not and do not hold any grudge against anyone. Believe me, we have better things to do rather than indulge in cheap tricks.

BTW, I am still intrigued why you changed your avatar. You could have continued as Suresh. Suresh, you need to realize that as you are entitled to your views and post them, other members too are entitled to theirs and post them. No one is bent upon insulting you or our forefathers by saying they ate meat. Nobody here is asking you to eat meat. The correct way to get other members to accept your point of view is to have a healthy debate and convine them on the basis of your arguments. In your earlier avatar you categorically claimed that "a Brahmin is by birth and has to be born of a brahmin father". I posted Vishwamitras case. You never came back. Similarly, KRS has posted Kanchi Periyava's Hindu dharma. Whether you accept KRS or any other members as knowledgabale or not, I hope you will accept that Kanchi Periava was a great sage and an authority on hindu scriptures. Do you think Periava insulted Brahminism by saying Brahmins ate meat ?

WHy talk of only Brahmins in old times ? There are quite a few slokas in Valmika Ramayan which many claim to indicate that Rama ate meat. I am very careful here. I am no authority on sanskrit (NARAS/Suresh please note). This is just based on my knowledge of Sanskrit (thanks CBSE)

In Valmiki Ramayana (VR) Ayodhya Kanda, Skanda 20, Sloka 29, Rama says to Kausalya " caturdasha hi varSaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |
madhu muula phalaiH jiivan hitvaa munivad aamiSam"
which mean " I shall live in a forest like a hermit for fourteen years, leaving off meat and eating only roots, fruits and honey"
Please note the words carefully. Rama explicityly says "hitvaa aamisam".

Again in , Sundarakanda, Skanda 36, Sloka 41, says: “Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte, na chaiva madhu sevate, Vanyam suvihitam nityam bhaktamsnati panchamam.”
Here Hanuman consoles Sits saying that, "(after your abduction)Rama is not eating meat, nor indulging even in spirituous liquor. Everyday, in the evening, he is eating the food existing in the forest, well arranged for him."

Assuming this is true, does this mean Valmiki was disrespectful to Rama or hos forefathers ? Or does this in anyway reduce my respect for Mariyadha Purush Rama ? No way.

My point is, you need to understand that those were different times and different yugas. You cannot apply your yardsticks to measure the behavior of people in those times. Also you need to accept that everyone is entitled to their viewpoint/s and move on.

I am waiting to hear more from KRS on "Who are we?". Let us not reduce this to another veg/non-veg discussion. The reason I posted all these is to pointout that there are innumerable examples in our scriptures of people eating meat or abstaining from meat. Let us not judge them by what they ate rather by what they did. If you are still interested in just debating that point alone, maybe you should open a new thread and post your viewpoints there. Whoever want to join that debate will post their views there.That way we can keep all the threads being reduced to Veg/non-veg discussion.

Members please pardon me for a long post.

My 2 cents.

Thanks
Ramki

 

[NARAS]

Did Iyers Hail From Ireland???

NARAS aka Suresh

I did not want to post this. But I have to post this to make some things clear to you and other forum members. We as moderators assure that we are totally apolitical and un-biased.

You were not demoted from a Senior member to a Junior member. A member needs to have a certain number of postings to become a senior member. It goes by member id. It is a common feature in many forums. It is all done by default forum scripts. When you changed your avatar and registered as a new member, you started a new account. So your new count starts from then. I can assure you that, as moderators we did not and do not hold any grudge against anyone. Believe me, we have better things to do rather than indulge in cheap tricks.

BTW, I am still intrigued why you changed your avatar. You could have continued as Suresh. Suresh, you need to realize that as you are entitled to your views and post them, other members too are entitled to theirs and post them. No one is bent upon insulting you or our forefathers by saying they ate meat. Nobody here is asking you to eat meat. The correct way to get other members to accept your point of view is to have a healthy debate and convine them on the basis of your arguments. In your earlier avatar you categorically claimed that "a Brahmin is by birth and has to be born of a brahmin father". I posted Vishwamitras case. You never came back. Similarly, KRS has posted Kanchi Periyava's Hindu dharma. Whether you accept KRS or any other members as knowledgabale or not, I hope you will accept that Kanchi Periava was a great sage and an authority on hindu scriptures. Do you think Periava insulted Brahminism by saying Brahmins ate meat ?

WHy talk of only Brahmins in old times ? There are quite a few slokas in Valmika Ramayan which many claim to indicate that Rama ate meat. I am very careful here. I am no authority on sanskrit (NARAS/Suresh please note). This is just based on my knowledge of Sanskrit (thanks CBSE)

In Valmiki Ramayana (VR) Ayodhya Kanda, Skanda 20, Sloka 29, Rama says to Kausalya " caturdasha hi varSaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |
madhu muula phalaiH jiivan hitvaa munivad aamiSam"
which mean " I shall live in a forest like a hermit for fourteen years, leaving off meat and eating only roots, fruits and honey"
Please note the words carefully. Rama explicityly says "hitvaa aamisam".

Again in , Sundarakanda, Skanda 36, Sloka 41, says: “Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte, na chaiva madhu sevate, Vanyam suvihitam nityam bhaktamsnati panchamam.”
Here Hanuman consoles Sits saying that, "(after your abduction)Rama is not eating meat, nor indulging even in spirituous liquor. Everyday, in the evening, he is eating the food existing in the forest, well arranged for him."

Assuming this is true, does this mean Valmiki was disrespectful to Rama or hos forefathers ? Or does this in anyway reduce my respect for Mariyadha Purush Rama ? No way.

My point is, you need to understand that those were different times and different yugas. You cannot apply your yardsticks to measure the behavior of people in those times. Also you need to accept that everyone is entitled to their viewpoint/s and move on.

I am waiting to hear more from KRS on "Who are we?". Let us not reduce this to another veg/non-veg discussion. The reason I posted all these is to pointout that there are innumerable examples in our scriptures of people eating meat or abstaining from meat. Let us not judge them by what they ate rather by what they did. If you are still interested in just debating that point alone, maybe you should open a new thread and post your viewpoints there. Whoever want to join that debate will post their views there.That way we can keep all the threads being reduced to Veg/non-veg discussion.

Members please pardon me for a long post.

My 2 cents.

Thanks
Ramki

sir - Lord Rama is a kshatriya, but we are discussing about vedic bramins here. so your example is slightly offtrack.

2. i am a vaishnava. i cannot blindly accept what kanchi periyava, a saivite
has said about vedhic bramins, though i do no have lot of respect for the periyavaa.

3. Most of the theories about bramins being meat eaters during vedic times were 'discoveries' of 'rationalists' & communists. that is why i never had any respect for these ideas. in fact these 'rationalists' could 'discover' one day that the original homeland of iyers is ireland, and that ireland was called as 'iyerland' once upon a time and then it got corrupted as 'ireland'! surprisingly, many, even bramins will be ready to accept this!

4. i have also posted many quotes from our holy scriptures to prove that vedas never advocated meat eating for anybody-even non bramins. then how could vedas have advocated meat eating for bramins? the standard of vegeteranism of bramins is so high that, even garlic & onions are shunned by orthodox bramins even in these days. if bramins were meat eaters, as it is alleged, how did they suddenly change so much, and when, and why,
that too to the extent that they even consider consuming onions & garlic, which we all know are afterall only vegetables, as unorthodox?

5. i will move this discussion about veggie/non veggie to the thread 'Hinduism vs rest' which i started in my previous 'birth':caked:

6. i wanted to post my ideas freely without any pressure. that is why i changed my user name, though i retained the same email . this'senior', 'junior' matter which i have mentioned is ony for fun, not to be taken seriously!

7. once upon a time, people were freely allowed to convert from one varna to other varna. i think this is how sage vishwamithra got converted. but it is centuries since this practice was abolished. nowadays apart from being born to a bramin male, or being adopted by a bramin male, there is no way a man can become a bramin, though a female non bramin can become a bramin, if she marries a bramin male.

BTW , as i mentioned earlier, there was a time, when people were freely allowed to convert from one varna to another. so may be, some new convertees among bramins could have ate meat or sacrificed animals, earning a bad name for bramins. perhaps this is why bramins banned conversion of any person from one varna to another, so that the distinctness of brahminism is protected. again, this is not my personal view, the inferences of some researchers, which of course seems convincing from a logical point of view.

sorry from my side too, for the looooooooong...reply

 

[Chintana]

Great debate - I

Thank you for this insightful discussion, KRS and Hariharan72. It is unfortunate that the rest of the thread got digressed. I wish to contribute to this debate through my views.

KRS, this has reference to your posting #121 -

You've mentioned, "Christ apparently said that the path to his Father was ONLY through him."

Actually Jesus' words are 'I am the way'. This sentence has been interpreted in several different ways by several sects/peoples. What Jesus meant was (according to a few works that I have read and some conversations I have had with Christian friends) - be like me, do as I do and you will find God. He didn't claim himself to be the ONLY way to God. That is the work of those bent on converting the rest of the world.

But your larger point is not lost on me. "So, it seems to me that a person on his / her own individual inclination decides his / her path to Moksha. Is this not the ultimate goal? Our religion is great because, based on the mind level and inclination you have it gives you the opportunity to attain the eternal bliss through various Yogas." This is solid reasoning and I concur.

More in my next posting. I want to focus on keeping my responses short.

Dear Sri Hari,

Hope this way of addressing you is satisfactory.

The following quote is from Kanchi Mahaperiaval's book 'Hindu Dharma':

"
One man has the job of waging wars, another that of trading and rearing cattle, a third has manual work to do. What work does the Brahmin do for soceity?
Is not the grace of the Supreme-Being important even in worldly life? The Brahmin's vocation is doing such works as would enable all jatis earn this grace. The devas or celestials are like the officials of the Paramatman. It is the duty of the Brahmin to make all creatures of the world dear to them. The work he performs, the mantras he chants are intended to do good to all jatis. Since he has to do with forces that are extra-mundane, he has to follow a religious discipline of rites and vows more strictly than what others have to follow so as to impart potency to the mantras. If it were realised that he has to perform rituals and observe vows for the sake of other communities also, people would not harbour the wrong notion that he has been assigned some special [ priveleged] job.
Apart from this, the Brahmin has to learn the arts and sastras that pertain to worldly life, the traits and vocations of all other castes and instruct them in such work as is theirs by heredity. His calling is that of the teacher and he must not do other jobs. His is a vocation entailing great responsibility and is more important than the job of affording bodily protection to people, or of trade or labour. For the Brahmin's duty is to preserve the arts and crafts and other skills by which other communities maintain themselves to nurture their minds and impart them knowledge.
If the man discharging such a responsibility is not mentally mature, his work will not yield the desired results. If he himself is not noble of mind he will not be able to rise others to a high level. At the same time, he has a handicap which he does not share with others. If he believes that he is superior to others because he does intellectual work, he will only be a hindrance to himself. That is why the Brahmin has to be rendered pure. Since there are reasons for him to feel superior to others, there must be the assurance that he does not suffer from the least trace of egoism and arrogance. That is why he is tempered by means of the forty samskaras and his impurities wrung out. "

As you can see, for the answer to your question is that it is explicit and is so stated in the scriptures. Because the Varna system broke down due to various reasons in the past 100 years or so, this explicit message got lost. We will again discuss this in detail in a posting.

Not allowing entry to the temples is usually attributed to Brahmins. But if read the news carefully, you will find that in majority of cases, it is not the Brahmins who impose such restrictions, as far as temples go. But Brahmins do have a hand in these practices, I suppose. Again 'madi' started with proper intentions and reasons and like everything else it has degenerated in to mindless practice.

Answer to your final question is quite complex. We all need to understand who each one of us is. Based on that one's action may be different. We will discuss this in this thread as well in due course, after understanding certain data points.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Chintana]

Deep questions

Thank you for your thoughtful questions hariharan1972.

My response to the 'Varna' question - I am referring to both your question and KRS's response.

I would like to use a combination of sociological thinking and interpretations employed by self-realized masters in making my point here. I am referring to Swami Yukteswar's Holy Science when I say that human consciousness has devolved over the last 12000 years and is now in the process of ascent (according to his calculations Kali Yuga lasts only 1200 years; Treta Yuga lasts 2400 years, Dwarpara Yuga 3600 years and Satya Yuga 4800 years. If you total them up you get 12000 years which is half a cycle. 24000 years is one cycle). This is contrary to Western belief which says that human consciousness has "evolved". I believe this is because they are referring to the developments that marked the ascent from Kali Yuga to Dwapara Yuga. The point here is that human consciousness has devolved. By inference Vedic times (assuming we are referring to Satya Yuga, a time before 7200 years that lasted for 9600 years) must have had people with highly evolved consciousness.

Whether people hunted and gathered during that time or had learnt the art of land cultivation and settlement, I don't know. But they did have very high levels of evolution. So Varna was a horizontal division of labor (this comes from my sociology background) that was accepted by all members of society. The point we have to note is that people had divisions even during vedic times but it is possible that they didn't treat one another unequally. Varna by itself is not a problematic classification; only when people use it as a reason to mistreat others it becomes an issue.

Whatever work people did I think they believed that it had nothing to do with spiritual evolution. I think this was the basis for equality in society at that time. This is also the reason we had rishis from different varnas/castes become self-realized masters. The 'social' aspect of Varna was meant as a regulatory mechanism - it was a way of helping society monitor itself and move in a positive direction. Also the nature of one's job did not have the kind of economic relevance it has today. People didnt care what job they did as long as they saw that as a path toward self-realization.

My guess is that since they were focused so much on spiritual goals they needed some framework by which an orderly environment could be created and maintained so that souls could most benefit from the environment into which they were born. If it had'nt been varna, they would have come up with some other classification.

So to maintain order in society they prescribed responsibilities for each varna. In my understanding the 'crossing over varna' part was not as important to them as attaining the spiritual goal of realizing God.

Somewhere down the line this kind of reasoning and logic might have gotten lost due to wars, invasions etc which created a constant need to preserve one's culture at all costs. This could have been a reason why many rituals and traditions got passed down without a proper understanding of them.

Boy! this posting has gotten way longer that I anticipated.

Will pick it up in the next one.

KRS Sir,

Before the thread digresses too much to the effect that we start asking ourselves "Where are we ?" instead of "Who are we ?", let me shoot some Qs on your second posting.

Sir,

a) You have mentioned that there is a dharma attached to each varna. Is this mandatory ? (shall i use group instead of varna ?)

b) Secondly, if a person belonging to a certain group, fails to uphold the dharma relating to his group, does he get 'disqualified' to continue ?

c) What happens, if for example, a brahmin is desirous of say warfare ? Is their flexibility to do what he wants ? does that mean that he has to lose his right to continue in his group & move to the relevant group ?

d) Critically, how does the lowest group raise above ? Or is it consigned to do the manual chores for ever ? Is the group "prohibited" from say acquiring knowledge or wealth ?

e) Does the allocation of roles represent the esteem in which god holds these groups ?

f) For a minute, if i am part of a KKK group, can i argue that in the allocation of dharma, there is an "implicit" meaning that the lowest group does all the hardwork & the other groups can sit back & enjoy the fruits of labour ? Is this the intent ? Is there no emphasis on everyone having to do "hardwork", meaning "physical labour" ? Doesn't it represent "oppression" then ?

 

[bala_80]

I posted a message earlier . It still hasnt appeared in the forum yet. Could you please tell me why?

 

[Chintana]

Deep Questions - II

To your second question, hariharan1972,

If a person fails to 'uphold' his varna dharma society had ways of punishing that person. I do not know of the exact time in history when social and community consciousness overtook spiritual concerns or whether such a transition rendered the social and the spiritual mutually exclusive, but sure each person was held responsible for his/her tasks and if people didnt do their job they needed to have a good reason. During more recent times (perhaps Kali Yuga) we had the Chanakya Neethi which prescribed punishments for those who erred. While Chanakya Neethi does not belong to Vedic times it did not come up with the concept of punishment just like that. Like any good scholarly work it debated and adapted social ideas used in other texts to arrive at the conclusion. But I am only saying that it is quite plausible that punishments existed. I don't know for sure.

It will be wonderful if we promote research among the Brahmin community on these issues.

KRS Sir,

b) Secondly, if a person belonging to a certain group, fails to uphold the dharma relating to his group, does he get 'disqualified' to continue ?

 

[bala_80]

Guru,

You are absolutely right. My views are pre determined. Because I have been reading this forum for the past few days. I hope you know that one need not register to JUST READ the messages. and I wanted to post a message today and thats why I registered only today , even though I have been browsing this site already. I usually dont post much on the message boards. Im kind of a silent participant. I dont have patience like Suresh or KRS to assemble my thoughts and present them. And I certainly dont have the time for meagre multiple email account theories.

any admin worth his salt can tell from his logs about the IP addresses and the time during which a particular user visits the forum. So until the admin can prove otherwise, I suggest you keep those award winning theories to yourself .

Sri. Bala_80 Sir,

I am not an IT wizard. But I know any one can register free any number of e mails, in any i.d. they choose (subject to availability and modification) from many service providers. The speed with which you registered with this site to day and posted your very first posting accusing the moderator as biased, made me to think that your views are pre determined and not something spontaneous. Mr.Suresh has posted the maximum number of postings (about 950) in this site which is the highest by anybody including the moderators. No new member can judge the moderator so suddenly like this. Naras alias Suresh and Bala are the same or not; but the speed with which Bala_80 rushed to support Naras alias Suresh in challenging the moderator has a definite link.

GURUMURTHYJI

 

[bala_80]

How can you judge me like this based on just one single posting ? You hardly know about me . Is this the way you are going to invite other members to join ur project ? Will you tell them the same thing ? Why should you discriminiate me ? Is it because I posted something that doesnt go along with your views ?

If you must know, im in the U.S and I reguarly donate atleast $500 every year for child education for the poor.

You call yourself as the most democratic forum on the net. but you know what you did . U blocked my message yesterday , even though i did not violate any forum guidelines .



silverfox
[Let me see if you put your money where your mouth is!]

 

[Chintana]

Deep Questions III

This is really an interesting question.

I would like to give you an example.

I knew nothing about homosexuality when I was at school in India. I got to know about it sometime after I graduated from college. Even after I knew about it, it didn't sound like an option to me.

Point is, if your environment conditions you to think that there are only certain things meant for you and not others and respects you for doing what it prescribes for you, what percentage of the community will opt for other options assuming that it is possible to pull off a life outside of one's own community?

Also I don't know if Brahmins even at that time had the physique to match the rajasic Kshatriyas. I also don't know if they were willing to trade their spiritual powers for more physical powers.

More pointedly to answer your question, (I am only speculating here) the brahmins probably got involved in statecraft at some level. And maybe some of them did pick up weapons. Afterall there is the great example of Dronacharya.

c) What happens, if for example, a brahmin is desirous of say warfare ? Is their flexibility to do what he wants ? does that mean that he has to lose his right to continue in his group & move to the relevant group ?

 

[Chintana]

Deep Questions IV

It depends on how you define your idea of 'raise above'. If you mean did the lowest groups have a chance to change their caste that was perhaps difficult although not impossible. E.g., the Viswakarma Brahmins in the last couple of centuries. This sect was originally a group of carpenters who moved as a community to newer localities and called themselves Brahmins. M. N. Srinivas, a very good Indian sociologist, describes this process as 'Sanskritization'. He earlier called it 'Brahminization' but that term was too politically sensitive.

If, by 'raise above' you mean did they have a chance to uplift their consciousness, the answer is, absolutely! Spiritual evolution is not so much about what you do as it is about how you do it. In theory it was possible for every person, whatever maybe his/her station to do 'that thing which lies ahead of you' (idea of duty stated by Bhagavan Krishna in the Gita) to the best of that person's ability.

d) Critically, how does the lowest group raise above ? Or is it consigned to do the manual chores for ever ? Is the group "prohibited" from say acquiring knowledge or wealth ?

 

[Chintana]

Deep Questions V

I think ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am with KRS in this.

The Creative Force is a loving force. We are meant to be here so that we may learn to expand our love in the expectation that we will join our Source someday.

God, to me is a gushing fountain of love.

Inequality is human-made always. Never God-made.

KRS Sir,

e) Does the allocation of roles represent the esteem in which god holds these groups ?

quote]

 

[kashyap]

Iyerland and summaries

Folks
Someone mentioned about Ireland being the homeland of Iyers. What a coincidence . I am in Ireland.
I am quite busy and could not find time to post as frequently. Besides I was concerned about keeping my postings useful for the community.

BTW this thread has grown like hanuman's tail. Can somebody (atleast KRS who started this thtread) summarize the points he want to say in bullet points and post it as to WHo are we.

Folks I would also like you to watch out against people from other community using this thread to promote their anti-brahmin agenda such as calling us responsible for dalit opppression, and trying to promote inter caste marriage etc.
Also do not fall for their sugar-coated praises to a few in order to divide our folks.

I am referring specifically to "gounda mani" whoever it is.I have seen some of his posts -- all anti-brahmin rhetoric sugar coated with appeal to change, modernity etc. Folks, watch out for intruders with anti-brahmin agenda.

Moving back to the crux of this thread.. When this thread was started I knew we are going to be caught up. So my first posting was just to define "who i am" instead of "who we are". The "Who we are" stuff is walking on thin ice.
Later I posted saying about how communities can form on a core set of ideologies. And I knew from my experience , vegetarianism was not one of them for us as I have seen many brahmins.eat non-veg for whatever reasons. But all of us have one thing in common-- discrimination against us by obc/mbc.sc/sct/muslin/christian/budhist. This I think is the pressing issue and is a fire-fighting situation. So I do not want to keep vegetarianism in my core list. But at the same time, all of us will agree that brahmins eat vegetarian food at home even to this day. So if vegetarianism is proving to be divisive , as we are observing in this thread today, let us redefine brahmins as who eat vegetarian food at home. Hoping that this would bring many into the ambit
But if this is not enough, then we can redefine brahmin as one who helps others of his community and fights against the oppression of brahmins by the rest.This will bring in all of us into the ambit.

I would like to say that my objective is to keep this group together and channelize their energy for the good of the society. Let us all keep that in mind and the sooner we realize it the better it is .
First, the brahmins have to be defended from discrimination. Then gradually whatever high values that need to be incorporated can be incorporated and practiced by the members of the community. Else the whole thing will divide us and decimate us. Keep this in mind.
Let us be united.

 

[kashyap]

BTW I forgot to mention. I am not going to post anymore on this thread. Hope we will get some summary soon.

 

[NARAS]

.

I have much better resources about the Yajans where the Brahmins took meat, and if I quote from, Sri Suresh Ji will immediately make these giants in Hinduism as non-hindus. KRS

sir - what i have entered in this forum are not my personal views, but those mentioned in many of our holy scriptures,as i said before. just consider an example. in india, there are many activities which are legally banned and for which there is punishment. assume a person commits a theft. he is jailed. he is out of society for a few days. does that mean he is out of country itself? meat eating was a sin punishable in many ways right from vedic days for bramins. this does not necessarily mean,they will be out of religion. but they have to undergo the punishment even if they remain in religion. unlike abrahamic religions, where death penalty is punishment for violating scriptures, in hinduism there is punishment, but it is not barbaric. it is severe but within the ambit of civility.

 

[Chintana]

Who am I/Who we are - Where are we going with this

Thanks so much for this useful, heartfelt posting, Kashyap.

I am replying to your points in no particular order of preference/priority.

1. Good call to re-focus on the core point of the thread. I have tried to do that in my last few postings on this thread.

To summarize main points in this issue whether that is to be done by KRS or anybody else is kind of not realistic. One is the time factor (for whoever should do it) and another is sometimes the juice of the debate does lie in its meanderings and elaborations.

2. Thanks for the warnings about the anti-Brahmin voices. Much appreciated.

3. As many contributors to this thread have suggested in their own different ways, the vegetarianism part is definitely a distraction and I agree that more focus needs to be brought to the core issue.

4. Thanks for reminding us about why we need to stand united. That part, I thought, was well articulated.

Folks
Someone mentioned about Ireland being the homeland of Iyers. What a coincidence . I am in Ireland.
I am quite busy and could not find time to post as frequently. Besides I was concerned about keeping my postings useful for the community.

BTW this thread has grown like hanuman's tail. Can somebody (atleast KRS who started this thtread) summarize the points he want to say in bullet points and post it as to WHo are we.

Folks I would also like you to watch out against people from other community using this thread to promote their anti-brahmin agenda such as calling us responsible for dalit opppression, and trying to promote inter caste marriage etc.
Also do not fall for their sugar-coated praises to a few in order to divide our folks.

I am referring specifically to "gounda mani" whoever it is.I have seen some of his posts -- all anti-brahmin rhetoric sugar coated with appeal to change, modernity etc. Folks, watch out for intruders with anti-brahmin agenda.

Moving back to the crux of this thread.. When this thread was started I knew we are going to be caught up. So my first posting was just to define "who i am" instead of "who we are". The "Who we are" stuff is walking on thin ice.
Later I posted saying about how communities can form on a core set of ideologies. And I knew from my experience , vegetarianism was not one of them for us as I have seen many brahmins.eat non-veg for whatever reasons. But all of us have one thing in common-- discrimination against us by obc/mbc.sc/sct/muslin/christian/budhist. This I think is the pressing issue and is a fire-fighting situation. So I do not want to keep vegetarianism in my core list. But at the same time, all of us will agree that brahmins eat vegetarian food at home even to this day. So if vegetarianism is proving to be divisive , as we are observing in this thread today, let us redefine brahmins as who eat vegetarian food at home. Hoping that this would bring many into the ambit
But if this is not enough, then we can redefine brahmin as one who helps others of his community and fights against the oppression of brahmins by the rest.This will bring in all of us into the ambit.

I would like to say that my objective is to keep this group together and channelize their energy for the good of the society. Let us all keep that in mind and the sooner we realize it the better it is .
First, the brahmins have to be defended from discrimination. Then gradually whatever high values that need to be incorporated can be incorporated and practiced by the members of the community. Else the whole thing will divide us and decimate us. Keep this in mind.
Let us be united.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Kashyap Ji and Sri Chinatana Ji,

Sometimes one has to allow time for discussions to mature. In my next posting (third) in the next day or so, I will definitely summarize what we have said so for as the main topic of the thread is concerned and continue.

No discussion is invalid and at the same time, 'no' discussion is useless. The impetus of this thread is to try to make the different Tamil Brahmins to understand why we feel different and the crux of this whole divide is playing out before our own eyes. And it is good. Because now we can discuss this whole issue rationally and with due respect to everyone's emotions.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Chintana]

Dear Sri KRS,

I appreciate your taking the time out to summarize the thread. Thank you.

I tried to pick up from where you and hariharan1972 left off, in the fond hope that that will turn the direction of the discussion. But let us definitely try your summary to see if that does it.

Look forward to it.

Dear Sri Kashyap Ji and Sri Chinatana Ji,

Sometimes one has to allow time for discussions to mature. In my next posting (third) in the next day or so, I will definitely summarize what we have said so for as the main topic of the thread is concerned and continue.

No discussion is invalid and at the same time, 'no' discussion is useless. The impetus of this thread is to try to make the different Tamil Brahmins to understand why we feel different and the crux of this whole divide is playing out before our own eyes. And it is good. Because now we can discuss this whole issue rationally and with due respect to everyone's emotions.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[maruti]

Folks I would also like you to watch out against people from other community using this thread to promote their anti-brahmin agenda such as calling us responsible for dalit opppression, and trying to promote inter caste marriage etc.
Also do not fall for their sugar-coated praises to a few in order to divide our folks.
I am referring specifically to "gounda mani" whoever it is.I have seen some of his posts -- all anti-brahmin rhetoric sugar coated with appeal to change, modernity etc. Folks, watch out for intruders with anti-brahmin agenda.

Inclined to agree with you, but there's one small problem, if you don't mind. On the one hand, Brahmins are unhappy with 'reformers' whose real intent is to spew anti-Brahmin venom. Fine, no one can disagree with this. But then again, we also find the same Brahmins mocking the Lord's Teaching, disregarding the scriptures by calling them outdated, refusal to practice varnashrama dharma, and so forth.

Some of them even justify the habit of meat-eating, suggesting that ancient Brahmins ate meat. They don't even provide pramaana. I could go on and on, but the point is simply this: Modern Brahmins are becoming hypocritical by the day, because whilst they condemn barbarians like evr, they're guilty of the exact same offense, in that they have no love for the Lord, nor do they have any respect for scriptures. In what way are modern Brahmins different from people like evr, when they eat meat, condemn varna dharma, mock the Lord, throw away scriptures?

It's very easy to evade these qs, though.

 

[KRS]

Dear Maruti Ji,

Just to make sure that orthodox folks like yourselves understand the so called 'modern' Brahmins, I started this thread. Hopefully at the end of this thread you would understand why things are what they are. And I would request you to keep an open mind.

My objective is for both the 'Modern' Brahmins and the 'Orthodox' Brahmins to understand where each other is coming from. That's all. No one here is going to pass any value judgements on either of these groups. That has to come from yourselves based on your own values. But at least if one knows where the other is coming from, one can have a real dialogue instead of burning the effigy of the other! (Sorry, I just read that they have burned the effigy of Sri Dhoni!).

Pranams,
KRS

 

[maruti]

Dear Maruti,

There is a new thread on Vegetarianism and Alcoholism. Kindly post your views on meating eating etc in that thread.

Sorry, but I wasn't talking about vegetarianism at all. I was simply taking that as an example to show why modern Brahmins are a bundle of contradictions. Where in that post did I talk about vegetarianism exclusively? I was simply pointing out that whilst Brahmins dislike people like EVR, they fall into the trap of anti-brahminism by doing anti-brahminical activities, perhaps inadvertently.

That was my point, but the one word "meat-eating" in my post convinced you that I was digressing from the central theme of the thread. How ridiculous! If you can't read the whole post, then please don't comment.

 

[Chintana]

Apologies

Yes, I realized. That's why I deleted my posting.

Sorry about my original one.

Sorry, but I wasn't talking about vegetarianism at all. I was simply taking that as an example to show why modern Brahmins are a bundle of contradictions. Where in that post did I talk about vegetarianism exclusively? I was simply pointing out that whilst Brahmins dislike people like EVR, they fall into the trap of anti-brahminism by doing anti-brahminical activities, perhaps inadvertently.

That was my point, but the one word "meat-eating" in my post convinced you that I was digressing from the central theme of the thread. How ridiculous! If you can't read the whole post, then please don't comment.

 

[maruti]

Dear Maruti Ji,

Just to make sure that orthodox folks like yourselves understand the so called 'modern' Brahmins, I started this thread. Hopefully at the end of this thread you would understand why things are what they are. And I would request you to keep an open mind.

That's the whole point. A brahmin who claims to be 'modern' and does anti-brahminical activities, ceases to be brahmin. Then how are you gonna contribute to the brahmin community? In what way are you different from periyarists? In other words, modern brahmins are very similar to periyarists, whom they hate. So if you want 'orthodox' folks to understand 'modern' folks, you actually want 'real' brahmins to understand 'periyarist' brahmins.

 

[KRS]

Dear Maruti Ji,

I do not hate any Brahmins. And I do not hate any other Tamilians, or Indians or for that matter any member of the human world. The point is when you say 'anti-brahminical' activities, that needs to be clarified. I am not saying that the Brahmins of today are not doing any of these activities, but you would be surprised to learn who exactly is doing this and to what degree!

Who ceases to be a Brahmin is not as simple as one who eats meat and who does not do Sandhyavandanam - and in both of these instances, I entirely agree with you. They are not 'Brahmins' as envisioned by our scriptures. But then sadly a huge percent of ourselves who call ourselves 'orthodox' have ceased to be 'Brahmins' as defined by our scriptures as well. So, it is a matter of degree. So, let us discuss this issue openly, with each side knowing that the other side's stand on Brahminism is indeed questionable.

What all I ask is to please have patience and read the whole thread. We will analyze the whole issue.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[maruti]

Dear Maruti Ji,

I do not hate any Brahmins. And I do not hate any other Tamilians, or Indians or for that matter any member of the human world. The point is when you say 'anti-brahminical' activities, that needs to be clarified. I am not saying that the Brahmins of today are not doing any of these activities, but you would be surprised to learn who exactly is doing this and to what degree!

Who ceases to be a Brahmin is not as simple as one who eats meat and who does not do Sandhyavandanam - and in both of these instances, I entirely agree with you. They are not 'Brahmins' as envisioned by our scriptures. But then sadly a huge percent of ourselves who call ourselves 'orthodox' have ceased to be 'Brahmins' as defined by our scriptures as well. So, it is a matter of degree. So, let us discuss this issue openly, with each side knowing that the other side's stand on Brahminism is indeed questionable.

What all I ask is to please have patience and read the whole thread. We will analyze the whole issue.

Pranams,
KRS

Dear KRS,

This isn't about convincing me as to who's Brahmin and who's not. It's NOT a personal problem but a collective one, a problem faced by all of us Brahmins. Thanks to modern brahmins, if I tell some dravid about the things they do, they retort by saying "you brahmins do the same thing. Don't you brahmins throw away sacred thread, don't you also abuse your gods, don't you brahmins also eat meat and drink heavily in the name of being modern" and so on and so forth. In short, these ppl allege that there isn't much difference between the brahmins of today and periyarists, cuz they both subscribe to similar ideas.

Get my drift? It's all well for us to analyze who's orthodox and who's modern, whether vedic brahmins ate meat, and all that, but in the end, this only gives dravids a chance to brag that brahminism is outdated, and that even brahmins are only following atheistic, rationalist ideas, which is why they reject orthodox brahminism. And so they conclude that rationalists' (ppl like evr and their coterie) influence has penetrated even into Brahmin society.

I hope you understand what I am trying to convey. By dividing ourselves into orthodox and modern, we're only reinforcing the view that periyarism isn't much diff. from what modern brahmins do. And this itself is a victory for dravids, isn't it? By trying to define who we are, we're only playing into the hands of the dravids, because we're forced to realize that most of us modern brahmins are closer to 'rationalism' than we are to Vedic Brahminism.