How to retain our left out community???

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sravna,

Then please would you elucidate as to the inner meaning behind the kudumi?

There is no inner meaning. One very orthodox TB elder quoted, out of context of course, the line तस्या शिखाया मध्यॆ परमात्मा व्यवस्थितः । स ब्रह्म स शिवः स हरिः सेन्द्रः सोऽक्षर परमस्वराट् ॥ (tasyā śikhāyā madhye paramātmā vyavasthitaḥ | sa brahma sa śivaḥ sa hariḥ sendraḥ so:'kṣara paramasvarāṭ ||) from Narayanasooktham which is usually recited by us smarthas in continuation of the Purushasooktham. That TB elder told that if the Kudumi is removed the divine presence of Brahma, Hari, Indra (and so all kinds of divine presence) will leave that Brahmana.

I very much wanted to ask him whether such divine presence would be there in an NB sporting a Kudumi but wanted to avoid his getting angry and shouting at me!

 

[sravna]

Sravna, I think some members have written more about the importance of kudumi. I see that Shri sangom has also contributed.

The practice of keeping a shikha was intrinsic to brahmins over the last several centuries. Many of the elder generation in my family had it when they were young. Then due to job prospects (mainly) and a society that jeered at brahmins, they slowly let go of it.

My intention is not to blame anyone, but to point out that brahmins have thrown out whatever was inconvenient and have no right to ask anybody to stick to something. If it is an ideal that you are talking about, then it is universal, imo, and not restricted to just one particular caste or community.

Dear Auh,

Asking to stick to something is ok if it is for a person's own benefit and for the benefit of the society. That is what many are asking here. It is not good to throw away everything but balance taking into consideration the nature of the times.

 

[zebra16]

Questioning and weeding out the practices unwanted and unwarranted is not the job of a brahmana. That is perhaps the job of the acharya. Brahmins are supposed to follow the traditions of their fathers and forefathers.

The tendency of brahmins to stick to some and reject some maybe the main reason for a type of aversion, in the current generation, to all things brahminical.

At least among the smArthAs, it is not the job of AchAryA either, which effectively means that it is IMMUTABLE and cannot be changed.

In one of the discourses by Sri Jayendra Sarswathi, one of the brahmins raised the point of so many different variations in the basic sandhya vandanam and asked PeriyavA if it can be standardized as there are 1000 varieties of this simple rite. Kanchi Seer's answer was: "Then why do you want me to start the 1001st variety?

In yet another course by mahAperiyaVa, it was pointed out there are many contradictory stuffs in the purANams which lack credulity and also causes strife between various sects as some purANams extoll ViSnu as the Highest, some SivA as the Highest and yet some agni as the Highest etc. Why cant the contradictory stuffs be pruned from the purANams?

The reply by Sri Chandra Sekharendra Saraswathi, mahA periyavAa was that if everyone started pruning the purANams removing the stuff he found objectionable or not in conformity with his beliefs or sect, then there would be NOTHING left in the purANams and it is best that the purANams are left well alone without any editing.

You will find that the trouble starts for the TBs with these purANams.

 

[Vaagmi]

I have given you proof. Your inability to accept that is not my problem.

You gave this as the proof:

1)In Samkshepa Dharma Shastram (of which I have a copy here), on the short chapter about chudakaranam, there is a quote from Apasthambar about it, and when it is to be done.

2)For an online link, refer this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudakarana

And I replied in post #83:

My question is not yet answered. Chudakarana is the first mundan ceremony after birth. Nothing is said in the link about a Brahmin having a kudumi for ever. If samkshepa (or the expanded variety) of the dharma shastra is available please give us here the quote which gives the edict that kudumi and Brahmin should remain inseparable so that members here can accept it and move ahead to the next question.

Now my questions to you are these:

Please quote the portion of the apasthamba Sutra that you found in your copy of abridged dharma shastra. That is enough. we can then discuss its meaning and move forward. But you are not ready to do that and I do not know the reason.

Not so fast. You are jumping into unwarranted conclusions. I have given you evidence as stated in my post above. Pray what type of evidence would you accept? Let us first clarify that.

please read the lines above. you will get the answer.

Boy, such haste. I can understand your discomfort to tide the query quickly. Please let us finish this first. You will have to be patient.

LOL. This from some one who posted post # 84 at 10.14 AM today and followed it up with post #85 at 10.18 AM today as given below:

Going by the lack of response to the query, it leads one to think that not many are interested in analysing the practice prescribed for brahmins. There are a lot more. Kudumi is not the beginning and end of it all. When every code prescribed for a brahmin is analysed threadbare, not many will have satisfied minds.

who is in a hurry or impatient to get out of a difficult situation? Between 10.14 and 10.18 it is not an eon. It is just four minutes. LOL.

No it does not. You are quick to jumpt into illogical conclusions. I did not ask about other communities. The title of thread is about brahmins... and my pointed query is only w.r.t. the practice established by brahmins. You seem to have some fancy idea of how brahmins were/are, and your debates based on that is futile.

That is interesting. Now in this post the prescribed kudumi has become established one cleverly.

I dont see any truth in what you have said. Only a lot of stubborness.

LOL. You are getting uncomfortable when inconvenient questions are asked.\

My question still remain unanswered. Where is it prescribed that brahmins should have kudumi?

A straight answer please, and please quote the original lines for the benefit of the members here so that they do not rely on you for interpretation and can participate in the discussion.

 

[zebra16]

If at all the Brahmin community is to be revive and rejuvenate as a dynamic force, they have to find a "Srotriya and a Brahma-nishta" who has the capacity, charisma, standing, will-power and following to be able to convince and bring about the changes with conviction and to throw out the unwanted appendage accumulated over centuries.

A few members here granting themselves self-exemption from certain rituals or customs or cultural aspects, or giving creative interpretations to scriptures and deleting some practices or incorporating some others will have ZERO bearing on the community as a whole. It will be seen as an attempt to take the refuge of TB community and have that tag, but to live as per their own whims and fancies.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sravna, I think some members have written more about the importance of kudumi. I see that Shri sangom has also contributed.

What was the importance mentioned? This is an assumption. People have discussed about the Hindu society in general and members of the society having a kudumi. Just that and nothing more.

The practice of keeping a shikha was intrinsic to brahmins over the last several centuries. Many of the elder generation in my family had it when they were young. Then due to job prospects (mainly) and a society that jeered at brahmins, they slowly let go of it.

The practice of keeping a shikha was intrinsic to the Hindu society (not brahmins alone as contrived here) for several centuries. And people gave it up as time progressed. Brahmins gave it up late as they needed time to come to a conclusion as to its uselessness.

My intention is not to blame anyone, but to point out that brahmins have thrown out whatever was inconvenient and have no right to ask anybody to stick to something. If it is an ideal that you are talking about, then it is universal, imo, and not restricted to just one particular caste or community.

Good intention.

Human beings evolve and give up what is inconvenient and pick up what is convenient. In the interregnum when a determination is being made as to whether a particular practice is inconvenient or not, a particular practice is harmful or not, giving up a particular practice will cause more damage or not etc., there is a conversation going on loudly. Ultimately what stands is that which is good for the community as well as the individual.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

No, after a few months of training and staying in a place with very hot and dry climate, it seems my father came down with high fever and it could not be cured within short time with the help of Ayurveda or Naattuvaidyam which were the only available systems then. So he lost the opportunity.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[zebra16]

The practice of keeping a shikha was intrinsic to brahmins over the last several centuries. Many of the elder generation in my family had it when they were young. Then due to job prospects (mainly) and a society that jeered at brahmins, they slowly let go of it.

I think as per kAtyAyana Sroutha sUtra, kudumi or Shikha was optional.

2.1.9 of kAtyAyana Sroutha sUtra says:

keshashmashru vapatE vA aShikham.

 

[Raji Ram]

Read this thread for update of any possible solution. But so far NO! :sad:

Anyway this kudumi arguments are really very interesting! :ranger:

Thanks to all dear friends.

P.S: Though I :wave: -ed long back, I type here to register my appreciation.

 

[vgane]

Auh,
I searched for the significance of kudumi and found this one: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=4402

This may be authentic..It is referred in above TB forum discussions


According to the Vedic culture, when a person undergoes the
cuda-karana-samskara (hair-cutting ceremony) and upanayana (Vedic
initiation), he must shave his head, leaving a tuft of hair called a sikha
. One must have a sikha to perform any kind of yajna. Therefore in Indian
tradition all the brahmanas, Vaisnava or otherwise, keep a sikha.

http://nitaaiveda.com/NITAAI_Yoga_F...uestion(s)/Significance_of_wearing_Shikha.htm

 

[auh]

I think as per kAtyAyana Sroutha sUtra, kudumi or Shikha was optional.

2.1.9 of kAtyAyana Sroutha sUtra says:

keshashmashru vapatE vA aShikham.

The other option being complete tonsure. Am I right?

What chapter does this deal with?

 

[auh]

Please quote the portion of the apasthamba Sutra that you found in your copy of abridged dharma shastra. That is enough. we can then discuss its meaning and move forward. But you are not ready to do that and I do not know the reason.

It says the year on which chudakaranam should be done. As simple as that. There are various samskaras that has to happen in a brahmin's life and it is one among them.

My question still remain unanswered. Where is it prescribed that brahmins should have kudumi?

A straight answer please, and please quote the original lines for the benefit of the members here so that they do not rely on you for interpretation and can participate in the discussion.

I have given it long ago. I thought you would understand if I mentioned about chudakarana - it is the practice of shaving the head and keeping a tuft at the crown. But you did not want to accept that as it seems to have punctured something.

Let me explain a little.

There are various kinds of "vidhis" or rules and regulations that are generally accepted in the life of a brahmana. One is as per the vedas and upanishads. Second is as per the various dharmashastras. Third are practices that evolve over time as a by-product of one or more of the above.

Even Gayathri manthram was given by Vishwamitra rishi at a later point in time, but that has become so much of an important and integral part in a brahmin's nityakarmas. There are so many practices that have evolved among sri vaishnava brahmins (iyengars) that are different from iyers. Samashrayanam is just an example. It is not prescribed anywhere in the shastras, but SVs hold it sacred.

So goading and teasing me to show the original text etc., are nothing but pushover techniques to evade an embarassing situation.

Your only argument so far has been that it is not prescribed anywhere and so brahmins need not follow it. Irrespective of hundreds of years of practice, you come brandishing your own brand of logic and, apparently, just for the sake of debate, seek to rubbish a age old practice.

Good. Keep it up.

 

[auh]

At least among the smArthAs, it is not the job of AchAryA either, which effectively means that it is IMMUTABLE and cannot be changed.

In one of the discourses by Sri Jayendra Sarswathi, one of the brahmins raised the point of so many different variations in the basic sandhya vandanam and asked PeriyavA if it can be standardized as there are 1000 varieties of this simple rite. Kanchi Seer's answer was: "Then why do you want me to start the 1001st variety?

In yet another course by mahAperiyaVa, it was pointed out there are many contradictory stuffs in the purANams which lack credulity and also causes strife between various sects as some purANams extoll ViSnu as the Highest, some SivA as the Highest and yet some agni as the Highest etc. Why cant the contradictory stuffs be pruned from the purANams?

The reply by Sri Chandra Sekharendra Saraswathi, mahA periyavAa was that if everyone started pruning the purANams removing the stuff he found objectionable or not in conformity with his beliefs or sect, then there would be NOTHING left in the purANams and it is best that the purANams are left well alone without any editing.

You will find that the trouble starts for the TBs with these purANams.

When Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa were able to sway a large number of people to different philosophies and alter practices and modes of worship, I feel that an acharya who has charisma is empowered to do it.

Whether he does it or not is left to his conscience and need of the hour.

 

[yesmohan]

When the habit of having " kudumi" came into practice by Brahmins, I don' know;

but the practice prevailed during Vedic period.

I remember that I have quoted it in one another thread. Again I furnish.

There is an interesting passage in the “Grihya-sangraha- parisihta “ composed by the son of Gobhila
(In Vedic period, “Sutras Gobhila” was composed by Gobhila )

“ The Vashishthas wear braid ( now called ponytail) on the right side,
the Atreyas wear three braids ( three ponytails),
the Angiras wear five locks (of hair),
the Brighus have their head quite shaved,
others have a lock of hair on the top of the head (kudumi).”

source : MAX MULLER, A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, Family laws and Traitions pp53, Published by Williams and Norgate, London.
Edition 1859. tota pages 605.

The period of “Grihya-sangraha- parisihta “ was estimated in somewhere between
600 BC To 200 BC. by Max Muller;
but later disputed by Bala Gangadhra Thilak as the period was before 3000 BC in his research work.

 

[auh]

Dear Auh,

Asking to stick to something is ok if it is for a person's own benefit and for the benefit of the society. That is what many are asking here. It is not good to throw away everything but balance taking into consideration the nature of the times.

Dear Sravna, nothing good can come by sticking to practices that are irrelevant and are thrust upon people.

Please place yourself in the shoes of a so called "untouchable" and think through his viewpoint. You will understand the haughtiness that we wrap ourselves in when we try to display our "brahminness".

 

[sravna]

This could be the mission statement:

To help and try to solve the problems of those who are under pressure because of health, finances and relationship and also help in averting such problems.

Rationale: At least a sizeable majority of people by nature want to be good. Due to external pressures they are forced to be otherwise. These external pressures influence them negatively and are used against them mainly when they are in need of money or wanting to solve their health problems or when they are not able to cope in a relationship due to other factors.

If the gifted and well endowed of tamil brahmin community can rise to the occasion and volunteer to help such people in need, it helps people to behave normally and be good. In addition to this reactive approach, the community can also act proactively by trying to avert future problems by guiding people with their expertise.

Expertise in the following areas would be very helpful:

General and Specialist Doctors, Psychiatrists and Psychologists, Philanthropists, Personality development experts , Spiritual Thinkers

The service should be free of charge. The overall theme of everyone should be to bring the forgotten values back to the society.

It is just not the TB community but members of other communities can lend a helping hand.

 

[zebra16]

Auh,
I searched for the significance of kudumi and found this one: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=4402

We TBs are very shallow in our search for roots of our cultural practices and are satisfied with some internet link, whether authentic or inauthentic. This is one of the main problems when we are required to defend the practice or giving up of the practice.

There is no direct mandate of maintaining Shikha in vedas per se. But inferences abound.

A brAhmaNan is referred to as "AgnEya" in ShathapAtha BrAhmanam of Sukla Yajurveda in the vedic mantra "AgnEyO vai brAhmaNah:" and postulating this smruti says "agni chiHnam Shikha karma" meaning Shikha is symbolic representation by a brAhmaNan of agni.

It logically proceeds that without shikha a brAhmaNan is ineligible to perform any "agni kAryam" including simple homan and even pitr ShrAddham.

That is why we find sanyAsi dispensing with upavItam, Shikha etc. when they take up sanyAsa Ashrama giving up all karmAs including agni karmAs.

Even leaving aside all the agni kAryams etc. many of the TBs religiously chant at least one sahasra nAmam, the most popular being Sri Vishnu SahasranAmam. Before japa viniyOga of a sahasranAmam, anga-nyAsa and kara-nyAsa are mandated where "Shikha" is one of the places touched for invoking a particular devata (or an avatara of devata) at Shikha.

If we are doing the said anga-nyAsa without having the shikhA, we are probably doing an empty ritual without maintaining the shikhA.

In addition to shikhA, a brahmin has to wear an upavItam, wear pancha-kachcham, shikhA should be tied (baddhAshikhO), should be a dhIraH (one with controlled senses) and should be a krutAhnikaH (a performer of prescribed Ahnikhams like sandhya vandanam etc).

The rigors of life are tough indeed for a brAhmaNan and it is not as easy as giving up "shikha" just because others have given it up.

 

[auh]

The practice of keeping a shikha was intrinsic to the Hindu society (not brahmins alone as contrived here) for several centuries. And people gave it up as time progressed. Brahmins gave it up late as they needed time to come to a conclusion as to its uselessness.

Exactly, that is what I am saying. Practices that are useless will be automatically given up. The feeling of a community also is a similar thing.

Human beings evolve and give up what is inconvenient and pick up what is convenient. In the interregnum when a determination is being made as to whether a particular practice is inconvenient or not, a particular practice is harmful or not, giving up a particular practice will cause more damage or not etc., there is a conversation going on loudly. Ultimately what stands is that which is good for the community as well as the individual.

People would want to be a part of that society where it benefits them, individually, and as a family. They think about community only to safeguard their interests, and out of a caste feeling. Remove the caste feeling and the community interest is gone.

So, all the talk of reviving brahmin community, left-out is pure BS. Everyone acts to their convenience. If it is more convenient to act as a community than as an individual in certain matters, even non-conformists behave like community members.

This is "ulaga nadappu".

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna, nothing good can come by sticking to practices that are irrelevant and are thrust upon people.

Please place yourself in the shoes of a so called "untouchable" and think through his viewpoint. You will understand the haughtiness that we wrap ourselves in when we try to display our "brahminness".

Dear Auh,

The whole point is brahminness is not about being haughty but about being not haughty

 

[auh]

Dear Auh,

The whole point is brahminness is not about being haughty but about being not haughty

I am really surprised at this pronouncement. Dear Sravna, does it mean that other "communities" are haughty? Why would you want to attach a caste tag to a quality? Are these not universal principles that everyone should strive for?

In fact the only persons who could be an epitome of "not haughty" are the shudras as they have exhibited an extraordinary amount of tolerance over the centuries inspite of harassment from the other 3 varnas.

 

[sravna]

I am really surprised at this pronouncement. Dear Sravna, does it mean that other "communities" are haughty? Why would you want to attach a caste tag to a quality? Are these not universal principles that everyone should strive for?

In fact the only persons who could be an epitome of "not haughty" are the shudras as they have exhibited an extraordinary amount of tolerance over the centuries inspite of harassment from the other 3 varnas.

Dear Auh,

Is there anything wrong in saying that one strives to be good? It certainly does not mean that others can't be good. Also my understanding is that brahminness is not about caste , it is about well developed you are.

 

[zebra16]

The other option being complete tonsure. Am I right?

What chapter does this deal with?

It deals with darsha-pourNamAsa Ishti.

On re-reading the original text, I think I might have misunderstood what that sUtra meant.

On re-thinking and reading of the passage again, I think, the sUtra should mean "the yajmAnan may optionally get his head and moustache shaved off, except ShikhA.

So it was mandated that he should sport a ShikhA. I regret the error in my original post.

 

[auh]

It deals with darsha-pourNamAsa Ishti.

On re-reading the original text, I think I might have misunderstood what that sUtra meant.

On re-thinking and reading of the passage again, I think, the sUtra should mean "the yajmAnan may optionally get his head and moustache shaved off, except ShikhA.

So it was mandated that he should sport a ShikhA. I regret the error in my original post.

Noted. I will get this clarified at a suitable time from known persons. Thanks for the update.

I read it as either a "shika" or "complete tonsure". He can cut the hair and beard or be "ashikham". It seems vague.

 

[auh]

Dear Auh,

Is there anything wrong in saying that one strives to be good? It certainly does not mean that others can't be good. Also my understanding is that brahminness is not about caste , it is about well developed you are.

So then, let us just say, how all can become well developed. Shall we?

We definitely do not have to associate "brahminness" or "kshatriyaness" in everything we do. What is simple will give happiness.

 

[sravna]

So then, let us just say, how all can become well developed. Shall we?

We definitely do not have to associate "brahminness" or "kshatriyaness" in everything we do. What is simple will give happiness.

Sure Auh. That has always been my argument. But one should also correctly interpret the idea behind the practices of our past. Otherwise you are doing injustice to the good intentions of all those people who tried to devise far sighted systems.