Are we getting extinct? What is the contribution of movies towards that?

[sarma-61]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri Sarma-61 Ji,

My response in 'blue' below:


Regards,
KRS

My view is very simple when it comes to Nithyakarmas. It is all personal matter. Remember, religion is there to support a person's spirituality and not the other way around. If a person thinks that some practices do not suit him or appeal to him, that is his decision.

'Brahmins' include all sects and I am sure all of us struggle to live by some Brahminical code. What I do not understand is, why don't you see this as within a person's purview?

If one subscribes to this view of yours, (I don't) then I feel that believing in any last remnant of religious practices, may be insufferable from the point of view or purview of some people. We should therefore, not have any disagreement with such people who dislike god, brahminism, etc. also. Don't you agree? And, perhaps we may even have some brahmanas struggling to live by the western standards of booze, girls, sex and so on and nothing of the nityakarmas or other "punya"karmas in the list; and according to your above law, that should also be accepted as yet another Brahminical code by which such people "struggle to live"!

If I don't follow what the Acharyals' are saying, then it is an issue between myself, my family, my Guru, my Acharyals, my Gods. How does it affect anyone else? We are not like certain monotheistic religious sects to have any religious edict or sanction against such a practice.

We have clear ideas about "anAcAram", "durAcAram", "sadAcAram", etc., and for those who make a decision to follow our time-honoured system, these concepts are adequately clear. There are clear edicts in our Dharmasastras against "anAcArams" and "durAcArams". The question of monotheistic or polytheistic religion is irrelevant, therefore.

Again, sir, peoples' attire in my opinion has nothing to do with values/culture. People wear what is comfortable. Unfortunately, if any Acharyal says something that is not listened to by many folks, then it means that may be what the Acharyal have said can be anachronistic. One can not shame or by edict/pressure change a person on how they live. There are no 'mindless' changes out there. People adopt things in their lives because they bring utility. If the religion does not accommodate, it does not matter, one can stand at the top of the hill, but no one will listen. As I have said, if the utility is not there, people will not care.

The problem with this tamilbrahmins.com forum is that it is, in truth, a snare; it attracts orthodox people but then the overriding "preaching" here is "arise, awake and convert to a westernized brahmin, otherwise, you are lost!!". I also fell an unsuspecting victim but I will continue to express the views of a considerable percentage of tamil brahmin population even now living in Kerala, for whatever it is worth.

I can not disagree more. We live in free countries. Caste is abolished in India by law. National symbols unite us as one people and are not forced. What is society? It is an aggregation of individuals. Individualism is where the world is going, because of various advancements in life. You may not think so, but that is the fact. My argument is, our Brahiminical culture as you describe it, better address this to hold on to our values that are important. Just the fact that you lament on various points of non compliance tells me that the world has already moved beyond your concepts. It is not going back. It can not. So the question is simple. How one then, whatever % of a 'Brahmin' he/she is will contribute to the society.

I cannot disagree more. Caste has not been abolished by law or the Constitution in India. What has been done by the Constitution is to guarantee that no discrimination will be done (by any person) on the basis of caste, religion, sex, etc. Caste as a reality is well and kicking and even recognized by the judiciary; if my memory is right, there was a very recent court judgment allowing discrimination in selecting the helpers in a religious place (temple or church) and not selecting candidates from other religions/denominations.

I don't know where the world is going but I know a little bit about where my community (i.e., caste people) are going, what most of them believe, etc., and they do not seem to be going by individualism. Though your world has "already moved beyond" my concepts, there is still a world very much according to my views. Since you seem to claim undisputed and unquestionable authority on such matters, may I respectfully ask, who died and made you a king to pass judgement on others or enforce your version on an entire community?

There is no such thing as 'blasphemous in our religion. This word is often used by the extremists in other religions. So, tell me why my words are invalid. Sir, you invoke 'punya'. This is exactly why I do not follow Purva Mimamsa, as many of you do. I do not need any Punya. This is exactly why I do not want to do any of my Nithyakarma on that basis, which most of you seem to do. What I do for my punya or papa is my business. This is exactly the issue - if I may respectfully ask, who died and made you a king to pass judgement on others or enforce your version of our culture? I do not think that is a 'Brahminical' value. Why don't you worry about how you accrue your own Punya if that is what you are looking for?

To Blaspheme means "Utter obscenities or profanities", "Speak of in an irreverent or impious manner"; and both are relevant to anything held sacred or revered in the minds of people. Therefore, your statement that there is nothing blasphemous in our religion is as hollow as most of your bombastic assertions. Will you, for instance, allow me to start a new thread bringing out the negative and not-much-known side of Satya Sai Baba, or Vivekananda or Ramana Maharshi? Why?

I do not want to answer the rest of your statements because you seem to arrogate to yourself how you will view religion and religious edicts; in short, you seem to be under the megalomaniac impression that by procaliming yourself to be a tamil brahmin, you are doing a great act of charity to hindu religion, brahmin caste and tamil brahmins at the end. You say, "What I do for my punya or papa is my business."; if you really believe in that why don't you also "worry about how you accrue your own Punya" instead of trying to lord it all over this Forum?

It is very clear that you are saying that unless a person does X, Y and Z, he/she is not a 'Brahmin'!

Slightly wrong. "unless a person at least strives to do X, Y and Z, he/she is not a 'Brahmin'!" is the correct position, imo.

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Shri sarma-61, I don't want to interfere in your discussion with Shri KRS, all I want to do is provide some clarifications on your observations that relate to me.

..., so let us throw away this centum ideal and work on the basis that as time progresses the highest possible achievement will go on falling; and, to graft Shri Nara's idea on to this simile, "the history of such exams has not been very good as brought out by the lack of relationship between success in future life and marks obtained in the exams., so let us completely dispense with this system itself."

Please Shri sarma-61, if you want to cite me quote my exact words, do not "graft" them into whatever absurd simile you can think of to caricature my views. If you want a simile I will provide you with one, what I would like to see completely dispensed with is not a rubric but the rot.

Shri Nara sir,

You may by now perhaps know that I am not very conversant with taking part in forums like this. So, this “grafting” happened because this is the normal way we make a conversation. I was under the impression that just as in any direct conversation between X, Y and Z, X and Y may be talking , but one of them may say “if so what about Z telling like this, this, etc?”, and either Z may keep quite if he is satisfied that no “twist” has been made to his views or he may intercede and correct the first person’s statement. I shall be careful to avoid such instances in future. But what strikes me as strange is posts saying like, “excuse me for coming in between your conversation”, etc. So, if it is strictly “one on one”, should not the forum rules prevent such “butt-ins”?

Referring to your calling my simile as absurd, will you kindly explain why you find it to be absurd?

As to Shri Naraji's views, I can only say that if one's mother or father has a defect or physical handicap - lame, deaf, dumb, even madness - it is no valid reason to forsake him or her and throw them out.

Once again Shri sarma-61 you are fabricating an invalid anology to buttress your view. The proper analogy is cutting off a gangrene infected limb in order to save one's life.

Which are the gangrene-infected limb, and which is the limb and which is the life you aim to save, sir?

In a similar way, there may be many defects and shortcomings in our religion, scriptures, caste system, brahminism etc. But that is no reason for us to reject all these things wholesale. Just as a son/daughter tries to look after the parents to the best of their capability, let us also look after, preserve and nurture our traditions, religion, scriptures, and all - to the best of our capabilities.

You are conflating several things in this statement. I do have my views on god, religion, scripture, but I am not discussing about them here. I am not saying Brahmins of today must ditch, as you say, "all these wholesale". You are totally misrepresenting my position. I request you to refrain from doing so in the future.

I do not think I am ‘conflating’, i.e., mixing up, many things here unless you are referring to “religion, scriptures, caste system, brahminism etc.”; are they all not integrally related and already mixed-up, in a way? You say “Brahminism” should be confined to history books; may I know which item in the above is unrelated to Brahminism?

This is not essentially different from Shri Naraji's views, except that you think by giving some charities to vEdapaThaSAlas, you can wash off your hands from all brahmanic responsibility (or, alternatively, create a type of "benami" punya balance for your use when needed). I am sorry, I cannot agree with you on this.

From the misquotes and false analogies you have used above to present my views, it is clear you do not have a clear understanding of my views. Now, you are taking your flawed understanding of my views and "grafting" them onto somebody else. This is not right.

I just don’t seem to understand your rules! What is the harm if I say my opinion that certain idea expressed by person A are not essentially different from those of B with whom A seems to be carrying on a mock battle all the time in a Mahabharat-type (Dear bro, I mean).

My understanding of your views may be flawed but is there any rule here which prohibits such flawed understanding? What is the punishment for that, then? Just want to know.

If you have any issue with my views, please talk to me, please do not invoke my name or what you think are my views in this fashion.

Yes, if I have any “issues” with your views I shall have to definitely converse with you, but if I understand your views in certain manner and write “these are like Shri Nara’s views”, what is the harm? May be you can insist on my saying “these are like Shri Nara’s views, according to me”, but to insist that another member’s name should not at all be brought in, seems to me to be high-handed. Are the members posting here, all like vestal virgins?

 

[Nara]

WHERE DID ALL THE COWS GO?

I don't know.

Thanks for your reply dear Narayan, but I am not sure what I am arguing about with you. There were rich Brahmins and poor Brahmins if the texts are to be believed. Bhagavat Ramanuja was a sufficiently rich man. His contemprory Kuresan was ultra rich. Alavandhar was a king.

Given Brahmins are not supposed to enagage in labor, how did they become rich? In the case of Alavandhar we are told the king lost a bet with his wife and gave up half his kingdom to Alavandhar.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx

 

[Nara]

...You may by now perhaps know that I am not very conversant with taking part in forums like this.

On the contrary, dear sarma-61, from the command of language and the lucidity of your presentation, not to mention the way you cite texts -- nested quotes from previous posts to show the exact context when most people who have spent years in this forum don't know how to do a simple quote -- I think you are very conversant with taking part in forums such as this. I am not falling for the humility you feign .

So, this “grafting” happened because this is the normal way we make a conversation.

Alright, but please do not misrepresent what I am actually saying. If you do, then I am having to come in and provide clarification. This is only a request.

Referring to your calling my simile as absurd, will you kindly explain why you find it to be absurd?

To compare what I am saying to abandoning close relatives is absurd.

Which are the gangrene-infected limb, and which is the limb and which is the life you aim to save, sir?

I do not think I am ‘conflating’, i.e., mixing up, many things here unless you are referring to “religion, scriptures, caste system, brahminism etc.”;

My views on Brahminism is well known. No need to rehash.

I just don’t seem to understand your rules! What is the harm if I say my opinion that certain idea

The harm is in misstating my opinion.

My understanding of your views may be flawed but is there any rule here which prohibits such flawed understanding? What is the punishment for that, then? Just want to know.

There is no rule, no punishment, it is only a request, please do not misrepresent my views.

but if I understand your views in certain manner and write “these are like Shri Nara’s views”, what is the harm?

There is no harm if you quote me. The harm is when you write something and equating it to what I said. It is not a nice feeling when people put words into your mouth. I do see harm when you put your spin on my words and make it appear your spin was what I was meaning. All I can do is to request you to not do that. What you want to do is, obviously, up to you.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sarma-61 Ji,

i have explained enough about my position. I don't want to just continue on this profitless polemics.

No one here is attacking the way you want to live. On the other hand, it seems to me, in the guise of saying 'I wish' the same thing you accuse me of, viz., 'meaglomania' seems to be at play.

No one is preventing you from posting about the great Hindu saints you have mentioned. Go ahead and post. But if you resort to vilification, unsubstantiated attacks on them, like you did when you appreciated Godse's dastardly act, it will be promptly removed. Because for many of our members here, these folks are their Gurus and in our tradition it is 'Matha, Pitha, Guru Deivam'.

Yes, I do 'lord' it over this Forum, because that is my job. As long as folks like you are posting uncivilized words, that violate the Forum rules, I will do my job.

Regards,
KRS

 

[kalyankumar]

[2] Nastika and non-Vedanta mathams
The vedic period was not all that tranquil with all varnas peacefully living in harmony. There were several doctrinal challenges to poorvamimamsa. Among those Buddha and Jaina are the most prominent and still extant. Charvaka was another who were most likely brutally suppressed to the extent only caricatured fragments of their writings are available, that too as poorvapaksha by Vedantins who have every incentive to portray them in as poor a light as they can, and they did. Kapila's Samkhya is another example, a system that did not recognize a supernatural being. So, the Vedic period is not one in which unanimity of thought was prevalent.

A case can be made that the uttaramimamsa was a reaction to the criticisms against poorva-mimamsa. Then the religion of Vedantam itself is an essential acceptance of the rejection of Vedic doctrine.

Been out of action for over 10 days. I see the thread has moved on, but bear with me if I have to pick the week old mails to address issues raised. "Religion of Vedantam" is a phrase coined here, and is essentially motivated to show that it is separate from "vedic doctrine". This is a complete misunderstanding of what vedas is all about and is max-mullerian view (read 'foreign view') of the vedas. The terms poorvamimamsa and uttaramimamsa, as well as the term 'vedanta' themselves show they are both part of same text (ie Vedas). So, interpretations that they conflict each other is either 'ignorance' or 'motivated'.

Many vedantic texts like taittariya upanishad picks up samhita verses verbatim and expands on it. Some vedantic texts are within samhita itself. Also, all through, veda is a 'pramana' or 'means of knowledge' and deals with subject matters that are qualified as a) end known means unknown, b) end unknown with means known and c) both end and means unknown. I had covered this in an earlier post. Vedantic subject matter is 'brahman' (& moksha) in which case both end and means are not known. Poorva bhaaga of vedas predominantly deal with things which are towards dharma, artha and kaama, hence uttarabhaaga was clubbed as different from poorvabhaaga.

Charuvaaka, Buddha and Jaina were 'doctrinal challengers' of "poorvamimasa" (i think you mean poorva bhaaga here, mimamsa is a word that stands for 'analysis') is also a wrong statement. The main contention between the 12 'mathams' were on 'moksha' and all the other contentions were in alignment to their standpoint on moksha. Since budhdha looked at moksha as 'shoonya' or void, he had to dismiss everything from vedas to iswara. Jaina took moksha as just a human exercise and charuvaakas considered life as nothing beyond going after pleasures, so they both contested vedas. So, to hairsplit and say that they were against poorvabhaaga to contest the varna dharma in particular is falsehood.

"Brutally suppressed"??? This is an allegation without any basis. On the contrary, the texts from Sri Shankara clearly shows that they debated at very high intellectual level and dismissed wrong views. After the defeats people gracefully accepted the winning views and moved on. Regarding "unanimity of thoughts", no time in the history of mankind has ever been and will ever be, unanimity of views. It is only a 'predominant view' that can be spoken about. The fact that 5 non-vedantic vaidheeka mathams and 6 avaidheeka mathams perished in the course of time, shows that the vedic matham has been the strongest to stand the test of time. The fact that we are still debating the core aspects in one way proves the perenniality of the vedic vision.

 

[kalyankumar]

Dear Sri Sarma-61 Ji,

i have explained enough about my position. I don't want to just continue on this profitless polemics.

No one here is attacking the way you want to live. On the other hand, it seems to me, in the guise of saying 'I wish' the same thing you accuse me of, viz., 'meaglomania' seems to be at play.

No one is preventing you from posting about the great Hindu saints you have mentioned. Go ahead and post. But if you resort to vilification, unsubstantiated attacks on them, like you did when you appreciated Godse's dastardly act, it will be promptly removed. Because for many of our members here, these folks are their Gurus and in our tradition it is 'Matha, Pitha, Guru Deivam'.

Yes, I do 'lord' it over this Forum, because that is my job. As long as folks like you are posting uncivilized words, that violate the Forum rules, I will do my job.

Regards,
KRS

I can understand the discomfort Sri Sarmaji is going through, I myself had this kind of phase in my life when I used to be driven by codified views of dharma shaastra. It is a situation where we get convinced on dharma shaastra's and aachaaryaas reasonings behind why a certain way of life has to be led socially and see the society totally out of sync with these 'ideals'. It is a feeling of helplessness we get driven into. I think any strong affiliation to views gets us into this state - we can see this in other religious adherers and even self-proclaimed atheists as well. Same holds for people who are driven by a strong opinion that 'society has moved on and we have to change'. Even an affiliation to polical party ideology is like that. There is nothing right or wrong about it, but I am saying, it is a state. We all need to be sensitive about this fact and in my personal view we need to find a way where we can balance between the 'spirit' of shaastra drishti and what is the 'form' by which we can still practice the spirit that can help us individually, help us as a society and help the humanity.

 

[kalyankumar]

In my years I have seen, both young and old, rich and poor, educated and not so educated, even some liberal Brahmins, exhibit a sense of superiority, like we are brahmins, we are cultured, we are intelligent, etc. I think this is not healthy, not to mention false.

I think this is because of what has been drilled into them over their formative years, some by overt assertions from elders, but mostly subtle messages not often openly articulated. If they are made aware of this subtle bias, the beast that lurks deep inside, at least some youngsters and the liberal minded Brahmins will be able to deal with it in a positive way. Perhaps even the staunch defenders of Brahminism may also get sensitized of this angle, and even if they don't openly admit, someday, may be at some opportune moment in the future, they may reflect on it.

I agree that there was a sense of superiority in some section of brahmins till couple of decades ago. I myself have seen in my formative years about 30+ years back the way some brahmins in my village used to treat other castes. I am not talking about 'untouchability' and all that, but the way the superiority feeling was exhibit in dealing with laborers etc, but I felt it was more from their pride of being landlords, richness etc and not necessarily from the 'brahmin' pride. Irrespective of cause, I do agree the sense of superiority was existing, which I too think was not right to have. There were the others who were larger in number, who had 'vinayam' and largess to treat others with fairness and respect. Gita says 'vidhya vinaya sampanne brahmane', knowledge and vinaya are both essential for brahmana.

Having said that, I think the present situation is exact opposite. There is absolutely no 'pride' in brahminism amongst brahmins, especially younger lot, particularly girls, which is why all this commotion. I wouldnt agree that there is nothing to be proud about in brahminism which seems to be the line taken by Nara ji. We can only say brahmins are not being true and hence are being despised.

But, which other community doesnt take pride in themselves these days? Have you heard of the movie 'devar magan' - 'potri paadadi ponne devar kaaladi manne'?? Have you seen a movie called "Chinna goundar"? Kannu pada pogudhaiyyaa chinna goundare.... Do you watch the yadava party programs in TV? Have you heard PMK Ramadas talk about vanniyars? Who doesnt have community pride today?

The only LEAST ACTIVE CASTE ASSOCIATION today is ******* (I agree they are doing lot of good and charitable work, but brahmins dont support it in big numbers is what I am saying... not due to ******* fault but brahmin's fault). There is absolutely no 'pride' in being brahmin these days. We are mocked at in movies. Manorama says in one movie to a vaideeka who is conducting betrothal 'kooru ketta ayyire'... In another one, there is a comedy scene where the vaideeka who conducting the wedding ritual shown to be lover of the bride (some NB caste) to whom Livinston and vadivelu use derogatory words on caste asking to tie knot to bride. Avvai shanmugi was full of ridicule of brahmin language and sentiments - usage of words like 'paapaathi', veettukku vs aaththukku, abusive use of madisaru maami by a character called 'mudaliyaar', shady characterization of the brahmin elders, etc In one movie, Vijay gets into an agrahara house - after asin comes out with madisaar (the directors dont even know that madisaar is worn only by married women) and pulls him in, all other men adorning namam get thrown out saying 'we are all zeros/dummy', in another movie a madisaar mami comes to buy vegetables & vijay uses some shady praises on her looks & she is shown as enjoying all that & evens says 'poda ambi', the list goes on and on.

If any such depiction, even part of it had happened to other communities, so many theatres would have been burnt down. I am not saying we should do that, but atleast understand that we are being looked down upon as 'sitting ducks' and our women are getting perceived in a very shady fashion. Can we come out of our arm chairs and a/c rooms to see the reality and stop talking about the brahmin 'ego'?

 

[kalyankumar]

Dear Sarang Ji,

I have no problems if Varna is a birth right..thats fine with me.
I do agree with you that the Brahmins have preserved the scriptures by unbroken oral tradition.
That I do not deny too.

But what I want to say is Varna can be a birth right but Jnana(Knowledge) is not a birth right.

'Jnana is not a birth right' is a view fully endorsed by shaastras, commentrators like sri shankara, vedanta itself and innumerous gnaanis of the past. In fact, Sri Shankara takes up the first word of brahma sutra 'Atha' which means 'There after' to analyze After 'WHAT' (will one be eligible for gnaanam)? The contentions to him were 'after vedic studies', 'after purva mimamsa analysis' etc. He dismisses all that and concludes that only eligibility needed is saadhana chatustaya (in essence the emotional and mental tranquility). So, this is an endorsed view.

 

[kalyankumar]

Dear Sarang Ji,

I have a question here..many people think that one has to be "Brahminical" to be religiously inclined.
Hinduism only stresses on being Sattva and Ahimisic.
Sattva is a Guna that can be there in anyone.

I feel vegetarianism and a predominant Sattva lifestyle is adopted by many people these days..I would not want to paint it as being "Brahminical".

For example I am a Vegan,dont miss my prayers,read Sanskrit and religious text daily but I consider it my lifestyle and not being Brahminical.
Its just being a Hindu in my POV.

Fully agree, one need not be brahminical to be 'religiously inclined', infact one need not even be a 'HINDU' to be religiously inclined. One only needs to be believer on some religion for that. But, for a brahmin born, the best aligned way of life, food practices, occupation etc are what are suggested by shaastras and vedas. If a brahmin recites vedas, does japa, follows achara, engages in mimamsa debates, listens to classical music (naadopasana), shows daya to other beings, etc he or she is better aligned to ones own nature and physical/psychological make-up. If a brahmin eats non-veg, driven to non-satvic activities, etc the alignment is unnatural. Obviously, we cannot scientifically debate this, but those who have experienced both forms can easily see the difference. I think most of us these days see brahmins in either ways of life, we can make the judgement. But, again, it is subjective to ones experience - I can see some folks on this forum might come and say I have seen someone who does all this brahminical stuff but is still very rajasic or fighting etc.

 

[renuka]

'Jnana is not a birth right' is a view fully endorsed by shaastras, commentrators like sri shankara, vedanta itself and innumerous gnaanis of the past. In fact, Sri Shankara takes up the first word of brahma sutra 'Atha' which means 'There after' to analyze After 'WHAT' (will one be eligible for gnaanam)? The contentions to him were 'after vedic studies', 'after purva mimamsa analysis' etc. He dismisses all that and concludes that only eligibility needed is saadhana chatustaya (in essence the emotional and mental tranquility). So, this is an endorsed view.

Dear Kalyan,

I think you are reading everything in the literal sense.

Ok can anyone stop the thought of Kah Aham (Ko'ham) "Who am I" in anyone?
Thats the birth right of all humans.

See lets not go so detail..

Ok you see when I was young I wanted to be a doctor..so I studied for it qualified for it.
So acquiring Jnaana to be a doctor was my birth right..in the sense the right to acquire knowledge to be a doctor.

Everyone who wants to acquire knowledge he or she desires, has to follow a discipline and rules and regulations to get there.

If some one who hasnt gone to school or not passed their entrance exam well comes knocking at the doors of a medical college..he/she is will be shown the exit isnt it?

So same way..thats what is meant when you wrote

Sri Shankara takes up the first word of brahma sutra 'Atha' which means 'There after' to analyze After 'WHAT' (will one be eligible for gnaanam)?

There has to be eligibility criteria for anyone who wants to acquire knowledge.
Thats what Sri Shankara was talking about.

Have you seen Star Wars the movie? Its not easy to be a Jedi Knight, they go through rigid selections..so if someone wants to exercise his/her birth rights to gain knowledge he/she better be up to the mark and work for it.

No one can deny a deserving candidate.

When I wrote Jnaana is our birth right I didnt mean that we dont have to work for it.

There is Subhashita that says that in this world success comes to those who work hard..no deer voluntarily enters the mouth of a sleeping lion.Even a Lion has to work hard to make a kill.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri kalyankumar Ji,

I don't understand your post.

I never said 'society has moved on and we have to change'. Never exhorted anyone to change. In fact I admire that tiny minority in our community who continue to live the way their forefathers did. I know a few of them. But none of them will spend their time on the internet.

I have said that our community is changing along with the society. And this is a fact.

I do not ADVOCATE what our community should do en-masse. That would be ludicrous.

My issue is with folks who say, unless you do X, Y and Z, you are not a Brahmin. Who decides that? We do not have a Pope. To me religion and how I follow my dharma is my own business. No one else has a say in it, period.

That was my posting.

Regards,
KRS

I can understand the discomfort Sri Sarmaji is going through, I myself had this kind of phase in my life when I used to be driven by codified views of dharma shaastra. It is a situation where we get convinced on dharma shaastra's and aachaaryaas reasonings behind why a certain way of life has to be led socially and see the society totally out of sync with these 'ideals'. It is a feeling of helplessness we get driven into. I think any strong affiliation to views gets us into this state - we can see this in other religious adherers and even self-proclaimed atheists as well. Same holds for people who are driven by a strong opinion that 'society has moved on and we have to change'. Even an affiliation to polical party ideology is like that. There is nothing right or wrong about it, but I am saying, it is a state. We all need to be sensitive about this fact and in my personal view we need to find a way where we can balance between the 'spirit' of shaastra drishti and what is the 'form' by which we can still practice the spirit that can help us individually, help us as a society and help the humanity.

 

[kalyankumar]

Dear Sri kalyankumar Ji,

I don't understand your post.

I never said 'society has moved on and we have to change'. Never exhorted anyone to change. In fact I admire that tiny minority in our community who continue to live the way their forefathers did. I know a few of them. But none of them will spend their time on the internet.

I have said that our community is changing along with the society. And this is a fact.

I do not ADVOCATE what our community should do en-masse. That would be ludicrous.

My issue is with folks who say, unless you do X, Y and Z, you are not a Brahmin. Who decides that? We do not have a Pope. To me religion and how I follow my dharma is my own business. No one else has a say in it, period.

That was my posting.

Regards,
KRS

I agree. Honestly, I replied to some of the posts without going through the entire trail I missed in the last 10 days or so. In a sense I replied looking the posts in isolation. Bear with me on that. My comment on the post was after reading sarmaji's reply in isolation, may be we can look at my post in isolation. I agree to some extent with your point on 'definition' of who is brahmin etc. I think we need to be little dynamic with time on how we define what is brahmana dharma. However, I feel that there should be some common codification as to what is allowed and what cannot be, rather than leaving it to individuals. This should be through consenses of acharyas of the time (like the dharma aacharya sabha of today) and the society should adopt that. If we leave it entirely to individuals, then it can lead to chaos - that way we are actually leaving the definition itself in the open and would completely wipe off the community in time.

I guess there has to be a variant of dharma aachara keeping the 'spirit' in principle. For example, a vaideeka by profession and brahmana brought up in a very conventional household would perform samithaadhanam, agnihothram etc and even do swaadhyaya & pravachana as a nithya karma, do vajapeyam etc as naimiththika karma. Can we say all these are brahmana dharma and hence every brahmana perform these? Ofcourse, we can say, but there wont be many takers. Just that there are no takers we can also not drop the 'spirit' of them either. That is why I said we need to find a way where some of these spirit need to be kept but can change the 'form' suited to present. So, whoever is in 'todays' walk of life going to software firms or day jobs or whatever, cannot spend 8 hours in yagnas, not practical. Some freak drop outs from regular social lifestyle might adopt these but enmasse? I dont think so. However, the minimal things I mentioned in the earlier post are 'must'. Otherwise, there is no basic 'identity' of who is brahmin.

But, regarding the points I agree with you, yes how I follow my dharma is very much an 'individual' business. I can do puja, japa, nadopasana, not do pooja at all, whatever... It is very much individual business, can't be stipulated. But, what is minimal requirement to define who is a 'brahmin'? Are we saying just a birth as a brahmin is good enough and it doesnt matter even if the person eats non-veg, doesnt do even minimal brahmin samskara, marries NB ?

 

[kalyankumar]

Dear Kalyan,

I think you are reading everything in the literal sense.

Ok can anyone stop the thought of Kah Aham (Ko'ham) "Who am I" in anyone?
Thats the birth right of all humans.

See lets not go so detail..

Ok you see when I was young I wanted to be a doctor..so I studied for it qualified for it.
So acquiring Jnaana to be a doctor was my birth right..in the sense the right to acquire knowledge to be a doctor.

Everyone who wants to acquire knowledge he or she desires, has to follow a discipline and rules and regulations to get there.

If some one who hasnt gone to school or not passed their entrance exam well comes knocking at the doors of a medical college..he/she is will be shown the exit isnt it?

So same way..thats what is meant when you wrote

There has to be eligibility criteria for anyone who wants to acquire knowledge.
Thats what Sri Shankara was talking about.

Have you seen Star Wars the movie? Its not easy to be a Jedi Knight, they go through rigid selections..so if someone wants to exercise his/her birth rights to gain knowledge he/she better be up to the mark and work for it.

No one can deny a deserving candidate.

When I wrote Jnaana is our birth right I didnt mean that we dont have to work for it.

There is Subhashita that says that in this world success comes to those who work hard..no deer voluntarily enters the mouth of a sleeping lion.Even a Lion has to work hard to make a kill.

I thought I was concurring with you on my post, but surprised at your responding to the post. Again, I think I missed the trail and the context of your post.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Kalyankumar Ji,

Thank you for your detailed response above.

Let me start with a couple of simple questions:

What is the role of 'Brahmins' in today's society?

What is the role of any 'Acharams' today?

Because of your last post I am thinking about these questions.

Please take your time to respond.

Regards,
KRS

 

[renuka]

I thought I was concurring with you on my post, but surprised at your responding to the post. Again, I think I missed the trail and the context of your post.

Dear Kalyan,

I hope my reply to your post didnt come across as too harsh.
I did not intend it to be that way.

But when you wrote you are surprised with my reply..it set me wondering if I sounded too harsh.
If that post sounded a bit too harsh I apologize to you cos I never meant it that way.

I just intended to drive the point that when the question Ko'ham itself is our birth right why not jnaana?



regards
renu

 

[kalyankumar]

Dear Kalyan,

I hope my reply to your post didnt come across as too harsh.
I did not intend it to be that way.

But when you wrote you are surprised with my reply..it set me wondering if I sounded too harsh.
If that post sounded a bit too harsh I apologize to you cos I never meant it that way.

I just intended to drive the point that when the question Ko'ham itself is our birth right why not jnaana?



regards
renu

I dont think there was anything harsh, but I felt you took me as contesting your view on the subject, hence was clarifying. But, on the 'koham' point, I know Sri Ramana Maharishi brought forward the argument with force that just asking koham will make someone understand the self and attain gnaanam.

With all due respect to Maharishi, this approach is disputable. The reason is, when I ask 'Who am I?', someone within me has to answer this. Now, shastraas say Self or atma is all-pervading and the 'individuality' is a superimposition or notional aspect. So, the 'individuality' gets falsified when gnaanam takes place. In such a situation, the individual as a questioner-answerer duality cannot be source of this gnaanam. Also, when one gets the answer within oneself on 'Who am I?', what is the credibility of that answer and how can it be verified. Every individual will conclude it in a his or her own way and there will not be any praamanikam of that conclusion. What I mean is, there can be an error in the conclusion.

So, koham enquiry is not a means of knowledge of brahman. Only pramaanam ('means of knowledge') is vedanta shaastram unfolded by a learned guru (srothriyam brahma nishtam gurum abhigachchet says upanishads). The need for guru is a MUST, because, for the individuality to be falsified during the unfolding of gnaanam, it is essential that the listener 'drops' the freewill and submits to the means of knowledge. This is just as in the case of our eyes or nose - when they bring us any knowledge of colour and fragrance, our 'freewill' doesnt interfere in it and submits to the means of knowledge. Same holds for Sruthi pramaanam as well - when the subject is unfolded, the freewill needs to drop and the individual submits to the means of knowledge and then the vision unfolds. This is the beauty of vedantic sampradaya or tradition on how the vision is unfolded - there are many prakriyaas by which this vision is unfolded by guru through shaastras.

And since the 'giving up of freewill' is involved in this knowledge pursuit alone, we cannot compare the requirements for this pursuit in the same platform as the other knowledge. So, the requirement here is not just the intellect or brain alone, but also an emotional poise and tranquility (chitta shuddhi, chitta naischalyam etc), whereas in the other forms of knowledge all one needs is only adequate intelligence. Hence, the need of varna alignment, swadharma, dharma anushtana for ones ashrama (stage of life) etc become very relevant for the 'preparedness for this gnaanam'. So, I dont agree with the 'line of argument' of yours that since any knowledge is just knowledge and there cannot be prerequisite.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

I am not going to discuss about the Patanjali Yoga Sutra, which is a great ocean.
I want to submit humbly a simple thing. i.e. When a child is born in this Universe,
normally it crys. The child's very first cry sounds like in Sanskrit Word 'Koham'.
The child enters absolutely a new world, perhaps completely confused about the
entry and raises the basic query through the cry, Koh (who) Aham (I) - who I am.
As he grows, after few years, he slowly understands in the world many things
like caste, colour, etc. etc. The ab initio search for 'Koham' disappears and the
child come to believe 'Soham' - I am the one. And the literal meaning of Soham
in Tamil also starts...

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[renuka]

So, I dont agree with the 'line of argument' of yours that since any knowledge is just knowledge and there cannot be prerequisite.

Dear Kalyan,

I think in my post it was very clear that one needs to have pre requisites for acquiring knowledge.
The pre requisites being interest and willing to work hard and live up to the mark and follow a discipline.

Anyway the most important pre requisite for acquiring Atma Jnana is hearing the inner voice of God.
God calls the chosen candidate.

Tell me how many people in this world actually acquire atma jnaana as in perfection?

after all Lord Krishna did say that Among thousands of men, one perchance strives for perfection; even among those successful strivers, only one per chance knows Me in essence.

 

[renuka]

Hence, the need of varna alignment, swadharma, dharma anushtana for ones ashrama (stage of life) etc become very relevant for the 'preparedness for this gnaanam'.

Dear Kalyan,

I dont see where this Varna alignment,Svadharma etc comes in to acquire Jnaanam at this present age and time.

How many of us actually follow the jobs prescribed by our birth varna?

So how can we define Svadharma in case of a person who is a Brahmin by birth but working in the army or doing a trade?

What is his Svadharma?

And what about those who are off springs of intercaste marriages eg B and NB marriage.. what is their Svadharma?

So for me I feel as long a person does his job within the dharmic prerequisites of his profession and is willing to devote time and interest to pursue jnaana and strictly follow discipline that should be be fine.

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Kalyan,

I dont see where this Varna alignment,Svadharma etc comes in to acquire Jnaanam at this present age and time.

How many of us actually follow the jobs prescribed by our birth varna?

So how can we define Svadharma in case of a person who is a Brahmin by birth but working in the army or doing a trade?

What is his Svadharma?

And what about those who are off springs of intercaste marriages eg B and NB marriage.. what is their Svadharma?

So for me I feel as long a person does his job within the dharmic prerequisites of his profession and is willing to devote time and interest to pursue jnaana and strictly follow discipline that should be be fine.

Because of the European thinking and its influence on us during the British rule and from our Independence because we have hitched our future on to the western cultural bandwagon, it is felt that all humans are equal, must be equal etc., and this has got the label egalitarianism also.

But our ancient seers were more knowledgeable. The only mistake they perhaps did was, imho, to tell the truth to a people who changed over to a different mindset in the course of centuries.

Varna or inequality by birth is an observed and observable fact and right now it is being said by some economists like Krugman and some surveys, that being rich in the US runs in the family and so is being poor - a family trait, and the gap between the rich and the poor is rapidly widening, the rich get richer, the poor become poorer by the day! Hence there is no egalitarianism in that society whose ultimate goal is very much materialistic.

In the same way, there is no egalitarianism in our Indian society also (as far as materialistic advancement is concerned) and this is plainly visible for everyone to see, but there is no egalitarianism in respect of spiritual attainment also. Though the Bhakti cult tried to project as though spiritual attainment is open to all, the total number of "stories" of bhaktas, said to have attained Vaikuntam or Moksham, even according to that great tome "Sree mahaabhakta charitam" may not exceed one or two scores!

Sankara also says that the eligibility for acquiring brahmajnaana is only for those who belong to the dvija category and perform the rites, rituals etc., faithfully. Hence the Sudras, Pancamas, Chandalas and others are not eligible even for aspiring to get brahmajnaana. (Please note that I am talking only about brahmajnaana, and not about any worldly knowledge like science, medicine, rocket science or genetics etc.)

This truth was hidden and a twist given by many 20th. century neo-gurus (I don't want to name them) even though some of them are highly respected and even considered to be avataarams of God. Possibly, the only person who did not do this was Shri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati of Kanchi Matham. (Sringeri Matham has been publicly reticent on this point imho, but privately they may not hold a view contrary to those of the ancient seers, I believe.)

Since Varna is all but gone, and caste is also vanishing, and people are after material attainments mainly, the only possible thing which may or can happen is that the entire population of India gets converted to the abrahamic religion and will have to adopt their metaphysics, ontology etc.

I feel the above views, though sincere and honest, may not be acceptable to this forum and may be edited and removed, but I will humbly request the administrators to allow it to stand for 24 hours so that at least some readers will get a chance to remember what was removed as objectionable.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sarma-61 Ji,

We, here in the Forum do not moderate on ideas - we moderate on personal attacks, vilification, comments that adore violence etc. Comments such as above are not foreign to this Forum. There is no need to moderate on them.

I am surprised that you don't still seem to understand the boundary that separates a 'legal' from an 'illegal' posting as far as the Forum rules are concerned.

Regards,
KRS

 

[biswa]

Since Varna is all but gone, and caste is also vanishing, and people are after material attainments mainly,

I do not understand why these are being correlated. What prevents someone from being a non-materialistic, spiritual person who does not put much stock in the labels of the caste system?

 

[renuka]

Sudras, Pancamas, Chandalas and others are not eligible even for aspiring to get brahmajnaana. (Please note that I am talking only about brahmajnaana, and not about any worldly knowledge like science, medicine, rocket science or genetics etc.)

Ok get it, that means in South India only Brahmins would be eligible for Brahmajnaana cos for all practical purposes according to some historians all Kshatriyas and Vaisyas of South India are former elevated Sudras..so that leaves practically hardly anyone left for Brahma Jnaana in South India since Brahmins make up a lesser percentage.

That means places like Vaikuntha must be really empty I guess.

(You know I love telling everyone this historical fact about the elevated Sudra thing to friends and relatives and they get mad saying "what do you mean"?heheheh and I tell them "ya its true thats what some historians say"..some get so angry, but its no big deal actually..I view everyone as humans,so far all my post mortem findings havent discovered major variants)


Sarmaji BTW how come Sringeri Mutt was not aware of the fact you wrote and still admitted a Non Dvija recently?

P.S I dont find anything in your post that needs the intervention of a Moderator.
You have not insulted anyone or insulted any community in anway.
Thanks for reply
renu

 

[biswa]

Whaddyamean? Your post-mortem has not revealed any Brahma jnana? None at all?

I think the only explanation is that the janana went back to Brahma by the time the mortem happened. So much for all the caste based claims and counter-claims!