A Few Glimpses from South Indian History

[suraju06]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

HH,

If the orthodoxy avoids reformists like plague then they should avoid the teachings of the Alwars, Pillai Lokacharya and Sri Ramanuja also.
If orthodoxy avoids atheists like plague then they should avoid the advaitins like plague.

Your this view emerges from the wrong impression that Ramanuja, Alwars, Lokaguru all demolished the "orthodoxy" and in its place brought in earth-shaking reforms. This is not accepted by the majority of SVs either. Even Ramanuja did not claim it that way. About advaitins I do not understand why you are saying this. Needs elaboration.What is common between advaitins and atheists?

 

[sangom]

The entire idea of the propaganda is to make Brahmins lost their self confidence. The British perceived the Brahmins as the biggest threat. The missionaries always felt that it is the Brahmins who were the stumbling block preventing the conversion of India to a Christian state. Specific instructions were given from England not to admit Brahmins in their schools. The local fathers were faced with a situation where they would have had an almost empty school without Brahmins. So the rules were relaxed. But reluctantly.

What the British hated was for the first time in their history they were faced with people who considered them as inferior. Their racial superiority took a beating. I was reading an old book by an I.C.S officer. He narrates how a Brahmin who came to met him brought a servant with a pail of water, and how after shaking his hands he washed his hands. How he was told that the Brahmin had to take a bath after visitng him.

Later the British thought the Brahmins were the biggest trouble makes and curbing them will help in denying independence. This thought of a Civil Service officer in Madras Presidency is recorded. He favoured forming a group of Feudal land lords faithful to the British to counter the Brahmins.

That is the genesis of the Justice party and anti-Brahminism in Tamil Nadu.

The reason for my posting the earlier message was to advise the members of the futility of trying to argue out these points. There are many internet forums which are dedicated to anti-Brahminism. Some of the older members have been arguing there for years without any results.

It is a pityy that this has to happen in a Tamil Brahmins forum.

(Since Shri Nacchinarkiniyan tries to avoid addressing his posts generally, I follow the same practice when it comes to responding to his posts. That way it may be perhaps satisfying to him.)

Simple statements (sounding like pronouncements) without any references to back up those, will not carry any impression. In the above case, kindly furnish the references if those are available for the public; if not, if these are personal or confidential documents, please furnish relevant extracts, to support the following:

1. Specific instructions were given from England not to admit Brahmins in their schools. The local fathers were faced with a situation where they would have had an almost empty school without Brahmins. So the rules were relaxed.

2.I was reading an old book by an I.C.S officer. He narrates how a Brahmin who came to met him brought a servant with a pail of water, and how after shaking his hands he washed his hands. How he was told that the Brahmin had to take a bath after visitng him.

Regarding the under-noted portion of the post, my various posts have already brought out those facts as well as the reasons why the Britishers developed distrust of Brahmans. But the role of Brahmans themselves have been (conveniently?) omitted in what you say. It is to be noted that Brahmans elsewhere in India do not seem to have faced the same degree of British distrust.

"Later the British thought the Brahmins were the biggest trouble makes and curbing them will help in denying independence. This thought of a Civil Service officer in Madras Presidency is recorded. He favoured forming a group of Feudal land lords faithful to the British to counter the Brahmins.

That is the genesis of the Justice party and anti-Brahminism in Tamil Nadu."

I do not knowwhat you refer to as propagandain the first sentence of your post. But it looks to methat a section of the membership hereis surely getting paranoid (delusions of both grandeur and persecution, which psychologists associate with that condition).

Lastly, I would be grateful if you can furnish the links for one or two of the anti-Brahman forums you refer to so that I may see for myself why the older members are unable to argue out the Brahmans' case there.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,

How sad! I thought you will handle this in a much different way as your sensibilities are not very fragile. Let us leave it.Your observation that "the orthodoxy like Saidevo, Suraju, Sravna, P.V. Iyer, etc.," indicates how far removed you are from the reality. The orthodoxy of the Brahmin fold never come here to discuss any thing. They are happy with their belief system and values and they never want to come and discuss anything with the reformists for fear of getting corrupted. They avoid reformists and atheists like plague. So you can be assured that myself, (saidevo and others I would like add here but I can not represent them) who oppose you am only opposing your passionate views about homogenisation and the nihilist's approach to everything that is traditional and we are all as much caught in the vagaries of time as you have been. Only difference is that we refuse to accept defeat and keep fighting whereas the reformists have already buckled and wilted under pressure.

Dear Shri Suraju,

Since you are talking for yourself only and claim that you do not come under the orthodox group, I accept the same. But written language has some limitations and it is not always possible to describe each person individually in posts like those in this forum. For example, S/Shri Nara, myself, Smt. HH and sometimes Shri Kunjuppu are all bracketed as "reformers/reformists", sometimes as those who do "brahman-bashing", etc., for the sake of convenience to indicate all the persons in the opposing team by one collective term. But it may not always be the exact true position.

I do not get what you mean by "homogenisation" and hence I am unable to make any comments at this point. Now the word "nihilist" has the following dictionary meanings:

Someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief, An advocate of anarchism.

Before I try to answer your comment about my "nihilist's approach" pl. let me know whether you impute all the above aspects or only some.

Similarly, the last sentence in your post viz., "Only difference is that we refuse to accept defeat and keep fighting whereas the reformists have already buckled and wilted under pressure.", appears to convey something but what exactly is not clear. For example, what kind of pressure and for what?, how do you conclude that the reformists hold whatever view/s you find expressed by them because "they have buckled and wilted" under that (presently unclear) external (very possibly, from the context) pressure and that it cannot be as a result of their own thinking without any external forces pressurizing them to change.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raju,
If the orthodoxy avoids reformists like plague then they should avoid the teachings of the Alwars, Pillai Lokacharya and Sri Ramanuja also.

If orthodoxy avoids atheists like plague then they should avoid the advaitins like plague.

Regards.

Dear Smt. HH,

If I am right, you think advaitins are like atheists because of their concept of an impersonal entity as the supreme force? If that is what made you group advaitins and atheists together, I think that is a mistaken logic. Even though advaitic brahman is considered impersonal, it is considered a divine, omnipotent and and an omniscient force unlike atheistic philosophy which doesn't believe in divinity and in supernatural attributes.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sangom Sir,

How sad! I thought you will handle this in a much different way as your sensibilities are not very fragile. Let us leave it.Your observation that "the orthodoxy like Saidevo, Suraju, Sravna, P.V. Iyer, etc.," indicates how far removed you are from the reality. The orthodoxy of the Brahmin fold never come here to discuss any thing. They are happy with their belief system and values and they never want to come and discuss anything with the reformists for fear of getting corrupted. They avoid reformists and atheists like plague. So you can be assured that myself, (saidevo and others I would like add here but I can not represent them) who oppose you am only opposing your passionate views about homogenisation and the nihilist's approach to everything that is traditional and we are all as much caught in the vagaries of time as you have been. Only difference is that we refuse to accept defeat and keep fighting whereas the reformists have already buckled and wilted under pressure.

Dear Shri Sangom,

Edtd -KRS
Dear Sri Sravana Ji,
Please do not speak for others. More importantly, let the thread originator decide whether the flow is going where he wants it to go. You have no business advising Sri Sangom ji on his understanding of some one else's writing and his own response to it. It is between them two. You have no part in it. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

The Futility of Disputes by Thomas Jefferson

But in stating prudential rules for our government in society I must not omit the important one of
never entering into dispute or argument with another. I never saw an instance of one of two
disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many, on their getting warm, becoming
rude, and shooting one another. Conviction is the effect of our own dispassionate reasoning, either
in solitude, or weighing within ourselves, dispassionately, what we hear from others, standing
uncommitted in argument ourselves. It was one of the rules which, above all others, made Doctor
Franklin the most amiable of men in society "never to contradict anybody." If he was urged to
announce an opinion, he did it rather by asking questions, as if for information, or by suggesting
doubts. When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself he has a right to
his opinion, as I to mine; why should I question it? His error does me no injury, and shall I
become a Don Quixote, to bring all men by force of argument to one opinion? If a fact be misstated,
it is probable he is gratified by a belief of it, and I have no right to deprive him of the
gratification. If he wants information, he will ask it, and then I will give it in measured terms;
but if he still believes his own story, and shows a desire to dispute the fact with me, I hear him
and say nothing. It is his affair, not mine, if he prefers error.

There are two classes of disputants most frequently to be met with among us. The first is of young
students, just entered the threshold of science, with a first view of its outlines, not yet filled
up with the details and modifications which a further progress would bring to their knowledge. The
other consists of the ill-tempered and rude men in society, who have taken up a passion for
politics. (Good humor and politeness never introduce into mixt society a question on which they
foresee there will be a difference of opinion.) From both of those classes of disputants, my dear
Jefferson, keep aloof as you would from the infected subjects of yellow fever or pestilence.
Consider yourself, when with them, as among the patients of Bedlam, needing medical more than moral
counsel. Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the
habit of silence, especially on politics. In the fevered state of our country no good can ever
result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle.
They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get
by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road
with such an animal.

-- Thomas Jefferson

This portion is very special.

When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine; why should I question it? His error does me no injury, and shall I become a Don Quixote, to bring all men by force of argument to one opinion? If a fact be misstated, it is probable he is gratified by a belief of it, and I have no right to deprive him of the gratification. If he wants information, he will ask it, and then I will give it in measured terms; but if he still believes his own story, and shows a desire to dispute the fact with me, I hear him and say nothing. It is his affair, not mine, if he prefers error.

Once in a while I have to remind myself of the above.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Smt. HH,

Being logical and seeking logical answers IMO is not related to how big one's ego is. Logic is what you use to acquire knowledge. That achievement itself may feed your ego and very likely will unless it is moderated by higher values. Also, the fact remains that those who are truly orthodox and try to live by real values are far less afflicted by ego problems.

Dear Shri Sravna,

What you are saying is exactly opposite to "vidya dadati vinayam....

When you say "moderated by higher values", what are those higher-values -- would it include compassion, inclusion, amity, a sense of belonging for all...Do you think casteism has those "higher values"?

Dear Smt. HH,

If I am right, you think advaitins are like atheists because of their concept of an impersonal entity as the supreme force? If that is what made you group advaitins and atheists together, I think that is a mistaken logic. Even though advaitic brahman is considered impersonal, it is considered a divine, omnipotent and and an omniscient force unlike atheistic philosophy which doesn't believe in divinity and in supernatural attributes.

But Sir, the origins of advaita are from where? Is it vedic? Or were Govinda Bhagavatpada and Gaudapadacharya preaching a break-off branch from Buddhism? But merely included the concept of a "omnipresent force" -- an ideology that was incorporated into their philosophy in the 'dwindling times of buddhism'. Ofcourse Adi Shankara arrived on the scene and completed the buddhism-demolition job. Little wonder that kevala-advaita is purely atheist...It remains a mystery to me which concepts of advaita are from the vedas...Hopefully you being well-versed in advaita might shed some light on all this.

This is not to trigger off another set of discussions on this thread but hopefully something that can be explored in a new thread..

Regards.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

What you are saying is exactly opposite to "vidya dadati vinayam....

When you say "moderated by higher values", what are those higher-values -- would it include compassion, inclusion, amity, a sense of belonging for all...Do you think casteism has those "higher values"?


But Sir, the origins of advaita are from where? Is it vedic? Or were Govinda Bhagavatpada and Gaudapadacharya preaching a break-off branch from Buddhism? But merely included the concept of a "omnipresent force" -- an ideology that was incorporated into their philosophy in the 'dwindling times of buddhism'. Ofcourse Adi Shankara arrived on the scene and completed the buddhism-demolition job. Little wonder that kevala-advaita is purely atheist...It remains a mystery to me which concepts of advaita are from the vedas...Hopefully you being well-versed in advaita might shed some light on all this.

This is not to trigger off another set of discussions on this thread but hopefully something that can be explored in a new thread..

Regards.

Dear Smt HH,

Please, Sankara's brahman represents the highest divinity. To say that sankara propounded an atheist philosophy is to totally deprive brahman of that divinity. I really do not know what sort of argument to make to counter this if at all necessary.

Coming to the first part, by higher values , I mean them in the way they are commonly understood or all morally correct values in general. Castiests do not practice higher values.

 

[Nara]

......Alright, you try to read between words, so let me clarify with reference to your post no.531:

Thank you Saidevo, for the clarifications. I am still not clear what would be "without unduly hurting any traditionalist feelings and sentiments". It seems to me that even presenting a cogent argument backed up by well established and recognized sources, ends up unduly hurting the feelings of some of the "traditionalists".

On the other hand, some "traditionalists" make sweeping statements as if the "reformers" have no morals or something to that effect (e.g. sravna: "rationalists are all egotistical" etc., and then even clarify that it is not an attack because they don't mind it).

Anyway, Saidevo, let us not argue about how to argue, let us focus on the topic. I wish all of us can stick to the topic and not make unnecessary personal observations/characterizations.

Folks, let us all get along!

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....If the orthodoxy avoids reformists like plague then they should avoid the teachings of the Alwars, Pillai Lokacharya and Sri Ramanuja also.

Happy, the origins of SV theology is steeped in reform. The SV literature is filled with bold and revolutionary social ideas. As I mentioned sometime back, one of the Acharyas went so far as to say that the scholarship of a pandita who sees caste in another Bhakta is like the jewels on a dead body, or widow.

This to me indicates a struggle between Vadama converts who wanted to preserve their varna orthodoxy, and the true believers of SV as propounded by Azhvars and early acharyas like Nathamuni, Alavandhar, and Ramanuja. From the fact that today Brahmin SVs of both kalais are steeped in castiesm, we can infer that those intent on preserving the varna system were successful in silencing the reform-minded SVs.

If orthodoxy avoids atheists like plague then they should avoid the advaitins like plague.

SVs consider Adaitees as "pracchanna bouddhas" (bouddha in disguise), I suppose name calling is part of our tradition!!

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....Goebbels was in power only for a limited period of time. But these later day Goebbels have been in power for long and will continue to be in power for ever.

Godwin's law strikes again.

When people cite Nazis it is a clear indication they have run out of reasonable arguments!

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

From Shri Sangom's post #552 addressed to Mr.Nacchinarkkiniyan:

....please furnish relevant extracts, to support the following:
"Later the British thought the Brahmins were the biggest trouble makes and curbing them will help in denying independence. This thought of a Civil Service officer in Madras Presidency is recorded. He favoured forming a group of Feudal land lords faithful to the British to counter the Brahmins.

Dear Shri Sangom sir, I find it incredible that a single civil service officer was so successful in separating the NBs from Bs to the extent of sowing the seeds of the most virulent anti-Brahmin movement in the history of Tamil country. The statistics from the book you started excerpting in this thread "Politics and Social Conflict in South India - The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916 - 1929", by Eugene F. Irschick, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969, is much more convincing.

Here is a very revealing paragraph:

In government service, figures compiled by the Madras government in 1912 (Table 1) illustrate the consistently strong domination of the Brahmans in many upper levels of government service. The distribution of appointments among Deputy Collectors, Sub-Judges, and District Munsifs (all high positions so far as Indian employment was concerned) show that Brahmans in 1912 held 55, 82.3, and 72.6 percent of the posts then available to Indians. By contrast, non-Brahman Hindus (probably Vellalas, Balija Naidus, Nairs, and a sprinkling of Kammas and Reddis) held only 21.5, 16.1, and 19.3 percent of the total appointments. The Indian Christians and Muslims were well behind.
​

The site is not letting me upload a pdf file containing two tables that elaborate on the above. I will keep trying. (I have uploaded the tables as jpg files in the Gallery section http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/gallery/browseimages.php?c=3&userid=5417.)

If the British wanted to keep Brahmins down, they had a strange way of going about it, wouldn't you say?

Cheers!

p.s. unfortunately this is found in an academic book, probably unacceptable to some here ....

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom sir, I find it incredible that a single civil service officer was so successful in separating the NBs from Bs to the extent of sowing the seeds of the most virulent anti-Brahmin movement in the history of Tamil country. The statistics from the book you started excerpting in this thread "Politics and Social Conflict in South India - The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916 - 1929", by Eugene F. Irschick, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969, is much more convincing.

Here is a very revealing paragraph:

In government service, figures compiled by the Madras government in 1912 (Table 1) illustrate the consistently strong domination of the Brahmans in many upper levels of government service. The distribution of appointments among Deputy Collectors, Sub-Judges, and District Munsifs (all high positions so far as Indian employment was concerned) show that Brahmans in 1912 held 55, 82.3, and 72.6 percent of the posts then available to Indians. By contrast, non-Brahman Hindus (probably Vellalas, Balija Naidus, Nairs, and a sprinkling of Kammas and Reddis) held only 21.5, 16.1, and 19.3 percent of the total appointments. The Indian Christians and Muslims were well behind.
​

The site is not letting me upload a pdf file containing two tables that elaborate on the above. I will keep trying. (I have uploaded the tables as jpg files in the Gallery section Nara's Images - Tamil Brahmins Photo Gallery @ Tamil Brahmin Community.)

If the British wanted to keep Brahmins down, they had a strange way of going about it, wouldn't you say?

Cheers!

p.s. unfortunately this is found in an academic book, probably unacceptable to some here ....

Dear Shri Nara,

The portion in blue quoted by you is not mine, but from Nacchinarkkiniyan's post which i had cited. The book which you refer to gives the development in a fuller way. But here again Nacchinarkiniyan has just made a statement that the British opened schools for others and wanted Brahmans out, but found no one and so they had to relax their rules and admit Brahmans so that their schools may survive. But I find the Shanars of Tinnevelly were eager to get English education, were not bad in learning and the English educated Shanars detested being identified by that name and wanted to be known as "Nadar". That is why I have requested Shri Nacchinarkkiniyan to provide supporting evidence.

 

[ShivKC]

If the British wanted to keep Brahmins down, they had a strange way of going about it, wouldn't you say?

Cheers!

p.s. unfortunately this is found in an academic book, probably unacceptable to some here ....

though i am against the views of prof. nara, i have some thing to admire a lot. he knows the art of putting things down..keats,shelly,twain on par.. i enjoyed the way he scripts things, and especially that underlined one. prof, three cheers, there is something for me here to learn from you.

 

[KRS]

Folks,

This is from the Moderator. But I am not going to paint all of this 'red'.

I am posting this under this thread, but this applies to the entire Forum.

Three patterns are starting to emerge in the posts, which I want to caution against.

1. Labeling:
It is very easy to put a label on someone - call them Orthodox, Progressives, Conservatives, Rationalists, Traditionalists etc, etc. I have been guilty of doing so myself. But now, I am seeing more and more of it and it is being used as a weapon. This tends to group people in to cliques and when one smells blood against one clique, all the people in the so called other clique are upon this other clique like a pack of wolves.

Can we not do it anymore? From here onwards, any labeling of anyone will not be tolerated and will be considered as a personal attack.

2. 'Jalra'
There are some people here who perform with 'Jalra' very well. And I see the 'likes' received on a posting as predictable as night and day. Please stop this practice. The general guideline of 'liking' a post should be reserved for extremely thought out, exceptional posts that you like.

3. 'Proxy'
Some people are very glad to let other people to answer the posts, but do not want to answer them themselves, because of whatever reason. This Forum is for one to one exchange of ideas. This place is for individual thoughts and contribution, not for group thinking. There is nothing wrong in identifying with an idea you see here, but don't hide behind others to communicate that idea.

We can have, I think a fantastic Forum, accommodating the rainbow of ideas from our COMMUNITY, if we can at least follow the above.

Regards,
KRS

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Krishnamurthy.

At one time he was being considered to occupy the seat of 'Sankara Mutt' in some place in North India.
SEE the fall of a very knowledgeable person at the fag end of his life.I have learnt some lesson from this incident.

Swami PrakAshAnanda's guru is Swami Kripalu, so he is a KRShNa bhakta in the Ashram at VrindAvan. How was he considered for the Shankara MaTham?
Prakashananda sentenced

That he was knowledgeable and a crusader for Hindu Dharma can be understood from his Website here:
Home - The Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism

 

[happyhindu]

If the British wanted to keep Brahmins down, they had a strange way of going about it, wouldn't you say?

Dear Sir,

Am wondering if it was all a case of mistaken identities that led to problems in colonial india. Am thinking what sense would all this talk on vedic history make, if currently available data on genetics were taken into consideration.

I imagine an ancient subcontinent with its cultural borders including the boundries of BMAC and andronovo cultures. An extended area of fragmented tribal divisions constantly at fight with one another. Each definitely sharing atleast some amount of a common cultural basis, and yet squabbling over parts that were individualistic to each of them. Competition perhaps..

In this medley one can only wonder where the atharvans disappeared. Wonder what religion did they follow. They were explorers and gave the world vedic-astronomy, ayurveda, vedic-mathematics... Even the concepts of karma, moksha, and after-life are supposedly from the atharva...

Perhaps the atharvan arur-maghas were the three indo-persian Maghas (Magi) mentioned in the bible also (who visited Christ on his birth). Even the english word "magic" is supposedly derived from the magha (now zoarashtrian) astrologer-priests. There are a few indications the atharvans were wide-spread. Atleast we know the atharvans were the first vedic group to have surfaced in Srilanka.

What exactly happened, and what were the sequence of events we don't know. But indications are that these "old vedic" atharva people were almost-demolished and overtaken by the winning group of the "vedic-proper" trayi-veda people. I feel almost all indians would represent the components of "old vedic" and "vedic-proper", albeit in varying degrees.

If genetics were to be taken into consideration than quite apparently the southies have a lot more 'south' (atharva ?) in them than the new or central-asian ('vedic-proper'?).

Wonder why the brahmins and the non-brahmins of the colonial time could not realise the deep-rooted commonalities they shared with themselves as the 'south', esp the shared cultural ethos of temples, stunning sculptures, magical rituals of fire and idol worship, etc.

If only better sense had prevailed, then both the Bs and the NBs, could have worked productively for collective-growth together instead of becoming competitors for government jobs..

n'est pas?

 

[sangom]

Smt. HH,

These are some of my own thoughts on the different points brought out in your above post addressed to Shri Nara.

I think there is as yet no solid evidence for the supposition that in the vast continent (which you postulate) people "(e)ach definitely sharing atleast some amount of a common cultural basis, and yet squabbling over parts that were individualistic to each of them. Competition perhaps..". To the extent of basic requirements like protection from inclement weather, graduation from the wild existence when nudity was not a problem, etc., the people could have had commonality. But beliefs, cultural practices, etc., seem to have undergone significant changes even in the different layers of BMAC or Andronovo. Hence it may not be easy to assume the part about culture and beliefs.

As to competition, I am not sure. But it was (and perhaps still is) a basic human trait of us versus they; xenophobia in its primitive form. That was more at work even in those days. Plus the lure of plunder of whatever was considered valuable — cattle, horses-perhaps, - in BMAC and even in the tri-vedic people - and, most probably women too. (That this plunder is reflected even in sangam poetry is the opinion of many scholars.)

I do not understand how you put the atharvans as one of the tribes/classes/groups; is there enough supporting evidence for such an assumption? The rest of what you say is also new to me. It will be enlightening if you open a new thread (despite your studies and research) and elaborate as to how it is that "(atharva) were explorers and gave the world vedic-astronomy, ayurveda, vedic-mathematics... Even the concepts of karma, moksha, and after-life are supposedly from the atharva." Incidentally, I am not clear about the term "arur-magha". (In an earlier post you had referred to "arun mukha" but that directly means "ruddy-faced" rather than about skanda, IMO.)

I had read a web page saying that a large random sample DNA analysis of Indians showed that there is a nearly pure "south gene" which is found in some of the exclusive tribes of Andaman & Nicobar islands and as one travels from south India northwards, the south-gene gets progressively diluted and what the analysis termed as "north-gene" becomes more and more. But the study also said that north-gene of the same purity as in the A&N islanders is not found in any of the north Indian stock. Hence I doubt if genetically the scenario you envisage will hold good. (I am still searching for that paper in my hard disk; as soon as I am able to trace it out, I shall post the details. So, till then it is only my word. But you may be in a better position to find out if there is some research paper of this sort and whether it is genuine.)

Now I quote from your post:

"Wonder why the brahmins and the non-brahmins of the colonial time could not realise the deep-rooted commonalities they shared with themselves as the 'south', esp the shared cultural ethos of temples, stunning sculptures, magical rituals of fire and idol worship, etc.

If only better sense had prevailed, then both the Bs and the NBs, could have worked productively for collective-growth together instead of becoming competitors for government jobs.."

That is a big "if only" and this thread, I hope, gives at least some reasons for that.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

You said,
"But Sir, the origins of advaita are from where? Is it vedic? Or were Govinda Bhagavatpada and Gaudapadacharya preaching a break-off branch from Buddhism? But merely included the concept of a "omnipresent force" -- an ideology that was incorporated into their philosophy in the 'dwindling times of buddhism'. Ofcourse Adi Shankara arrived on the scene and completed the buddhism-demolition job. Little wonder that kevala-advaita is purely atheist...It remains a mystery to me which concepts of advaita are from the vedas...Hopefully you being well-versed in advaita might shed some light on all this."


Are you saying that

1. There is no foundation to be drawn upon from Vedas the concept of Advaitha?
2. Acharyal Shankara's efforts effectively finished off Buddhism in India?

If so, please provide citations to item # 2. I will furnish the details on item # 1.

But, please confirm whether my understanding is correct.

Regards,
KRS

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

CLARIFICATION
Dear Shri.Saidevo,
Please refer to your post No.566.I read in a news report that he was offered the post(Seat)of Sankaracharya, but declined the offer.He then joined the organisation under JAGATGURU
Acharya Kripalu Maharaj who is equally a great Scholar on Hinduism.He was awarded the title of JAGATGURU in his young age by KASI Scholars for his versatile knowledge.
He has written a number of books about Hinduism.I have listened to his lectures
where a minimum of 10,000 persons will congregate to listen to him.He is very modern in his outlook.He is similar to POOJYA GURU Shri.KrishnaPremi of south.That organisation
attracts lot of followers(majority ladies).Their ashram is in BARSANA Village where
RADHA consort of LORD KRISHNA was born. As we do embracing with each participant at the concluding time of R ADHA KALYANAM ( InBENGAL also this Custom of embracing everyone is done after VIJAYA DASAMI so much so all officers have to virtuously stand for the whole day to be embraced by each and every staff member.This custom is also practised in RADHA KRISHNA CULT organisation. The problem is when some learned Scholar becomes very prominent and famous,Persons with bad intentions join such organisations
as disciples with the sole aim of bringing bad name to that leader(GURU)and the organisation.
Swami Prakash Ananda Saraswathi may be innocent(or may not be).(His Conscience and GOD will only know the real truth).But there was never a doubt about his knowledge.
You have refered a website.Please open the website and read about the author.It is clearly mentioned that he was offered the seat of SANKARACHARYA OF JYOTHIRMATH,but he
declined and joined JKP organisation(Homepage of Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat).

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

I feel rationalists have far lesser ego than traditionalists. Am not speaking of "political-rationalists" but those who are rational in the sense of being explorers seeking logical answers...

Every man has ego, with the propensity to display it, in equal degree, be it a rationalist or a tradionalist, IMO. Until one becomes a jIvan-mukta, ego cannot be completely conquered.

Going by the definition of rationalism that it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Wiki), if a scientist is a rationalist, he would contradict the principle of rationalism in an instance like the following:

Rationalism is intellectual and not sensory knowledge. But when he finds that ultimately, according to physical science, the human thought process itself, which is powered by his intellect is nothing more than neuro-electro-chemical reactions, it becomes only sensory knowledge. When the mind itself is reduced to nothing more than the physical brain, where is the scope for intellectual knowledge and the rationalism that goes with it?

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

he origins of SV theology is steeped in reform. The SV literature is filled with bold and revolutionary social ideas. As I mentioned sometime back, one of the Acharyas went so far as to say that the scholarship of a pandita who sees caste in another Bhakta is like the jewels on a dead body, or widow.

Is it not that the use of the term widow on par with a dead body in the observation of a 'jewel on a ... widow' in the above AchArya's statement, sounds jarring in his 'bold revotionary social idea' against caste and caste practices? Who is the AchArya by the way?

 

[ShivKC]

namaste everyone.



Every man has ego, with the propensity to display it, in equal degree, be it a rationalist or a tradionalist, IMO. Until one becomes a jIvan-mukta, ego cannot be completely conquered.

Going by the definition of rationalism that it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Wiki), if a scientist is a rationalist, he would contradict the principle of rationalism in an instance like the following:

Rationalism is intellectual and not sensory knowledge. But when he finds that ultimately, according to physical science, the human thought process itself, which is powered by his intellect is nothing more than neuro-electro-chemical reactions, it becomes only sensory knowledge. When the mind itself is reduced to nothing more than the physical brain, where is the scope for intellectual knowledge and the rationalism that goes with it?

sh.saidevo, i would join you here in adding few more points in enlightening those here, who claim that traditionalists are more egoistic than rationalists. funny their claim is.

our vedanta traditions refer to Ego as ahamkara or ahangaram (अहंकार), a samaskrutha term that originated in Vedic philosophy over approx 3,000 years ago. it is one of the tattvas, or principles of existence. now further deriving. in the Uttara Mimamsa or vedanta Lord Krishna says to Arjun that ahamkara must be removed - in other words, it should be subordinated to the lord

Arjun is a traditionalist or rationalist?

so, i reinstate your point here, that, ego is cannot be shaded with any particular group of people, forget being castigated by half bakeds, towards traditionalists.

 

[suraju06]

This is what is posted here by a member:

Here is a very revealing paragraph:
In government service, figures compiled by the Madras government in 1912 (Table 1) illustrate the consistently strong domination of the Brahmans in many upper levels of government service. The distribution of appointments among Deputy Collectors, Sub-Judges, and District Munsifs (all high positions so far as Indian employment was concerned) show that Brahmans in 1912 held 55, 82.3, and 72.6 percent of the posts then available to Indians. By contrast, non-Brahman Hindus (probably Vellalas, Balija Naidus, Nairs, and a sprinkling of Kammas and Reddis) held only 21.5, 16.1, and 19.3 percent of the total appointments. The Indian Christians and Muslims were well behind.

This was the situation existing in 1912 A.D. Now let us look at the situation in 2011AD as revealed by a news item in the Times of India which is an independent newspaper in India with a vast circulation and a history:

Out of the total number of posts of Vice Chancellors to the universities in Tamilnadu
more than 50 % of these posts are held by Mudaliyars. The rest is divided by other castes such as Thevars, Naidus, Pillais, Gounders and one post is held by a brahmin.
There is not a single dalit at this level in any of the universities and no nadar either (whether christian or Hindu). These universities are all recognised by the Government of India and are receiving substantial funds by way of grants.

And here we are lamenting about the situation in 1912 when most of the members in this forum were not even born. And by that strange energetic input hangs a story!!

 

[Nara]

..., sounds jarring in his 'bold revotionary social idea' against caste and caste practices?

You are of course quite right Saidevo, it does sound very jarring. It would have been much nicer if he had left the widows alone, but, I still admire his courage to stand up to casteism at a time when Brahminical supremacy was at its height. Actually the passage is quite colorful. Let me give the soothiram in full, #86 of Acharya Hridaya Saram.

அஜ்ஞர் ப்ரமிக்கிற வர்ண ஆச்ரம வித்யா வ்ருத்தங்களை கர்தப ஜந்மம், ச்வபசாதமம், சில்பநைபுணம், பஸ்ம ஆஹுதி, சவ விதவா அலங்காரம் என்று கழிப்பார்கள்
கர்தப = donkey, சில்பநைபுணம் = expertise, ச்வபசாதமம் = artistry (not sure, Shri Sangom sir may help)
​

The general meaning is: those who get confounded by varnam, asramam, vidya, anushtanam are like donkey; their artistry and scholarship are like ahuti offered upon ash, ornaments upon a cadaver or widow, and will be rejected as such by the wise.

There is more, much more, but this is the best .

Who is the AchArya by the way?

His name is அழகிய மணவாள பெருமாள் நாயனார். He was from an illustrious family. His father was வடக்கு திருவீதிப்பிள்ளை who occupies a prominent position in the acharya lineage of all Thenkalai SVs and the Vadakalais belonging to Sri Ahobila Matam. His older brother was பிள்ளை லோகாசார்யார், the preeminent intellectual heavy weight for Thenkalai lineage.

Cheers!