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

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

If one follows the right method, it is a customary practice to submit an invitation to the
Mutt for Acharya's blessings. The above practice is a novel one and perhaps, it appears
to be a method of regularisation of an event. I read inter-caste marriage incidents in a Book recently.
We are leading where, we do not know. Girls when they go for employment, sometimes they
forget their origin and the background of the family. If the present trend continues,
we all have to take into note that inter-caste marriage system will severely affect and harm
our tradition very badly. Children due to emotion, love factor, get married without knowing the
implications. After marriage, may be after sometime only, they start understanding the value of
tradition, religious aspects, food habits, culture, etc, once when they come into conflict.

In olden days, elders used to say that Brahmin Boys are not supposed to grow Mustache.
They need to do Sandhya Ritual regularly thrice a day. Must recite at least some Vedas/Slokas
daily. In the brahmin houses, one must do Athithi Sathkaara (serving food to Athithis or Guests)
and Bhiksha Dhana to Vedic Students. People must do homam regularly at periodical intervals.
It may be a wonder, how many practice all these. Some say excuses owing to time factor, etc.

 

[renuka]

Well, you are making this statement with the premise that intercaste marriage is not 'Ahita'. Secondly, a general blessing of 'may all be well' (lokaha samastha sukino bavanthu) is fine. But, if we take someone's name and say that this wedding has been conducted by their 'blessing', it implies that the person has given a scriptural saction to the wedding. Unless there is an explicit sanction from the person, we cannot use the name. This applies to not just religious heads. Even when we take any celebrities name for functions, it is imperative that we take their agreement before we use their names. In the case of peetadhipathis, especially when we are doing a non-religiously-sanctioned activity, if we want to use their names, I think it is a basic requirement that we take the permission. If we are confident that peetadhipadhis will bless this, then we can go and seek their consent and then put the name. I really dont know whether in this case people did this or not. But, in my view, since peetadhipadhis go by vedic and shastric tenets, this kind of wedding would not be accepted in 'religious' terms. However, from material, worldly purposes any wedding is fine. Net-net, what is happening is 'koozhukkum aasai, meesaikkum aasai'... People dont care about religion, tradition etc, but dont want any 'deiva kuttham', so seek blessings. But, in my view, when people go against the basic principles, all these blessings will help only upto some extent. Intercaste marriages are harmful to the greatest religion of the world. Arjuna tells krishna in the first chapter of gita - war creates destruction of warriors & good kings, this can create anarchy, which can inturn lead to 'intercaste marriages' (varna samkara), and 'intercaste mixed world' is equivalent to hell (samkaraha narakaha eva). Bhagavan accepts this statement of arjuna and doesnt contest it. So, atleast from religious view, intercaste marriage is 'ahitam' and not 'hitam'.

dear Sir,

Bhagavan Krishna doesn't answer Arjuna on that..so we have no idea if Bhagawan agreed to it or not.

Varna Sanskar was quite common I feel even in days of Mahabharat..best example is Sathyvati who was brought up in the fisherman caste and married King Shantanu.

There is a different school of thought that says that she was a daughter of a king..hence technically a Kshatriya.

But we must not forget that Sathyavati is the mother of Sage Veda Vyasa and hence Veda Vyasa himself was born from a Varna Sanskar union.

But some might say that these are Anuloma examples and not Pratiloma examples.

Pratiloma example is Devayani and Yayati.

So I do not feel any marriage is Ahitam and only God decides the blessings and we cant say that all blessings are only up to a certain extent in intercaste marriages.

Dont get me wrong I am not promoting intercaste marriages and neither am I discouraging them.I am neutral about any marriage and this is just my opinion.

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Kalyanakumar, Greetings.

Arjuna tells krishna in the first chapter of gita - war creates destruction of warriors & good kings, this can create anarchy, which can inturn lead to 'intercaste marriages' (varna samkara), and 'intercaste mixed world' is equivalent to hell (samkaraha narakaha eva). Bhagavan accepts this statement of arjuna and doesnt contest it. So, atleast from religious view, intercaste marriage is 'ahitam' and not 'hitam'.

It is in the second chapter. Krishna did not accept Arjuna's words. He said 'Arjuna, how did such filth enter your mind?' He actually says 'filth' (kasmalam). No sir, he did not accept in chapter 2.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

.....Krishna did not accept Arjuna's words. He said 'Arjuna, how did such filth enter your mind?' He actually says 'filth' (kasmalam). No sir, he did not accept in chapter 2.

Raghy, you are leaving an impression Krishna repudiated what Kalyankumar cites, that is not correct. Krishna scolds Arjuna for refusing to fight, that is all, not about the varna sanghraha part.

The fact is Krishna goes on chapter after chapter never dispelling Arjuna about his view on jAti. On the contrary there is enough in BG to show Krishna did not have any problem with this statement of Arjuna and hence this is not part of Arjuna's "confusion", according to Krishna.

Another fact is, Arjuna makes this comment about jAti sanghraha not just out of the blue, he emphasizes that this is what clan elders have taught him.

Taken in total, I think there is no objective question that Shri Kalyankumar's comment is valid.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Nara, Greetings.

We already had a discussion about Srimad Baghavad Gita. You are right. In subsequent many chapters, Varna differences are mentioned. But I don't know if 'varna sanghraha' was opposed. I am not too sure about that point. I mean, 'varna sanghraha' in a mutual consent. As Sowbagyavathy Renuka mentioned in #102, such sanghraha was already in practice. I really have to go through Gita once again to confirm; but I don't have the time now. (That's why I cautiously mentioned about only chapter #2; that always leaves me the opening to come back and say if indeed Krishna accepted that, where he accepted that).

It is true, Arjuna referred to his clan elders. But then, on few occassions, Krishna did not go by the clan elders advice either.

I like to keep my options open in this 'varna sanghraha' point, please.

Cheers!

 

[kalyankumar]

Sri. Kalyanakumar, Greetings.



It is in the second chapter. Krishna did not accept Arjuna's words. He said 'Arjuna, how did such filth enter your mind?' He actually says 'filth' (kasmalam). No sir, he did not accept in chapter 2.

Cheers!

"Kutastwa kashmalam idam vishame samupasthitham, anaarya jushtam aswargyam akeerthikaram... klaibyam maasmagama.. na ethat twayi anupapathyathe..hridaya dourbalyam thyekthva uththishta" - this is what bagavan says in 2nd chapter. The adjectives for kashmalam are all about the cowardice shown by arjuna - klaibyam (impotence), hridaya dourbalyam (faint heartedness), anaarya jushtam (not fitting the brave) - etc are all about the cowardice of arjuna that bagavan refers to. So, if you are taking the word kashmalam to be used by bagavan to contradict arjuna stance on varna sangraha, I think it has no basis. Nor have any of the numerous commentators including Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhwacharya taken that kind of interpretation. Arjuna said so many things in first chapter about the evils of war, not all of them are dismissed by bagavan. He is only talking about Arjuna's need to do duty, even if it leads to impact on things like kingdom etc. That doesnt mean that bagavan says the impact of war is all good and he accepts the varna sangraha etc. He infact says, 'chaatur varnyam maya srishtam, guna karma vibagashaha' - i created the four varnas based on attributes and duty. Some people these days interpret guna vibaga to mean, people can choose any 'duty' based on 'inclination' (guna). But, this interpretation again has no scriptural basis, and even once can choose, why would the lord say 'mayaa srishtam' (created by me)?

 

[kalyankumar]

Sri.Nara, Greetings.

We already had a discussion about Srimad Baghavad Gita. You are right. In subsequent many chapters, Varna differences are mentioned. But I don't know if 'varna sanghraha' was opposed. I am not too sure about that point. I mean, 'varna sanghraha' in a mutual consent. As Sowbagyavathy Renuka mentioned in #102, such sanghraha was already in practice. I really have to go through Gita once again to confirm; but I don't have the time now. (That's why I cautiously mentioned about only chapter #2; that always leaves me the opening to come back and say if indeed Krishna accepted that, where he accepted that).

It is true, Arjuna referred to his clan elders. But then, on few occassions, Krishna did not go by the clan elders advice either.

I like to keep my options open in this 'varna sanghraha' point, please.

Cheers!

Bhagavad gita's context has no relevance to talk on varna sangraha, so bagavan hasn't directly touched upon that topic. But, in numerous places it is implicitly clear that bagavan is only talking about varna by birth.

He says 'swadharme nidhanam shreyaha, paradharmaha bhayaavahaha' - it is better to die following one's dharma (swadharma means duty by birth, duty by stage of life like brahmachari etc, duty at a time) than to take up another one'd dharma, which he says is 'fearful' or 'dreaded'. So, if even at duty level he opposes the varna mixing, I fail to understand how he could have supported family level varna mixing.

We need to be true to bhagavan when we look at his work, not twist any opportunity to 'our beliefs'. You might counter me saying, even I am doing that; but then, umpteen number of commentators have also taken the similar view of varna by birth only. Sri Shankara is very clear at numerous places that varna means 'by birth only'. He even takes the arjuna's saying 'shreya bhaikshyam' (better to take to alms than to kill gurus) as to mean that arjuna is choosing paradharma (alms), which a kshatriya is not 'entitled to do'.

Regarding the 'elders advice', elderlyness is not a license to be 'considered correct'. Even dhritharaashtra was an elder, duruyodhanaa was probably elder to sahadeva, doesnt mean elder one was correct. In fact, age was never a 'necessary' criterion of respect. A learned brahmana was always respected irrespective of age, a grihastha always prostrates to a sanyasi even if age was lesser for sanyasi, likewise in our tradition sthaanam is more important - guru can be younger to sishya (this was excellently portrayed in the 'pranava upadesam' play of lord swaminatha and shiva), wife of elder brother should be prostrated to by a lady even if manni is younger (this is by sthaanam). So, it is the wisdom that was respected and not 'elderlines'.

By the way, I dont think we are so wise to comment on what krishna did and whether he was right, if we accept the position of his 'lordship'. Sri Veda Vyasa presents the dharma or duty in the context of situations. Same thing done by one person, one varna, in one situation may be right and the same thing done by another person, or another varna or another situation may be wrong. The entire mahabharatha dwells at length on this. Also, let us not take exceptions as rule and fool ourselves that varna samgraha is allowed. There are numerous scriptures beyond bhagavad gita which dwell on this subject and if we also fool ourselves by believing mayavathi's and christian missionaries that only 'manu smrithi' which prescribes this, it would be a big loss for us.

 

[kalyankumar]

dear Sir,

Bhagavan Krishna doesn't answer Arjuna on that..so we have no idea if Bhagawan agreed to it or not.

Varna Sanskar was quite common I feel even in days of Mahabharat..best example is Sathyvati who was brought up in the fisherman caste and married King Shantanu.

There is a different school of thought that says that she was a daughter of a king..hence technically a Kshatriya.

But we must not forget that Sathyavati is the mother of Sage Veda Vyasa and hence Veda Vyasa himself was born from a Varna Sanskar union.

But some might say that these are Anuloma examples and not Pratiloma examples.

Pratiloma example is Devayani and Yayati.

So I do not feel any marriage is Ahitam and only God decides the blessings and we cant say that all blessings are only up to a certain extent in intercaste marriages.

Dont get me wrong I am not promoting intercaste marriages and neither am I discouraging them.I am neutral about any marriage and this is just my opinion.

Veda Vyaasa's birth story is unique. Saga Parasaraa was on a boat driven by sathyavathi and being a greatest astrologer he saw the astro situation where a conception at that moment can lead to a greatest sage who can help the world for generations. Hence he had not choice but to conceive a kid through sathyavathi. He was proved right, as every book we trace our religion to, was written by vyasa - puranaas, brahma sutra, mahabaratha (bagavad gita), bagavatha, .... list goes on. So, it is an 'exception' and not a rule, as narrated by the incident itself. So, if someone can bringforth another veda vyaasa, we can allow varna sangraha!

 

[Nara]

Shri Kalyankumar has eloquently presented a very cogent argument covering the points I have made in the past. Those who oppose this argument are in effect rejecting the knowledge and understanding passed down from the early, greatly revered, Acharyas down through authentic lineage to the highly revered Acharyas of the present time.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Shri Kalyankumar has eloquently presented a very cogent argument covering the points I have made in the past. Those who oppose this argument are in effect rejecting the knowledge and understanding passed down from the early, greatly revered, Acharyas down through authentic lineage to the highly revered Acharyas of the present time.

Cheers!

Dear Sri.Nara, Greetings.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with that argument. You know that very well. I am half asleep now..... I will go through that argument later.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Veda Vyaasa's birth story is unique. Saga Parasaraa was on a boat driven by sathyavathi and being a greatest astrologer he saw the astro situation where a conception at that moment can lead to a greatest sage who can help the world for generations. Hence he had not choice but to conceive a kid through sathyavathi. He was proved right, as every book we trace our religion to, was written by vyasa - puranaas, brahma sutra, mahabaratha (bagavad gita), bagavatha, .... list goes on. So, it is an 'exception' and not a rule, as narrated by the incident itself. So, if someone can bringforth another veda vyaasa, we can allow varna sangraha!

Dear sir,

I dont have much time now to write but I disagree with you about the Sathyavathi being the mother for the moment to conceive Veda Vyasa...thats like not giving her any credit for being the mother of Veda Vyasa.

I am sure Parasara muni was powerful enough to make a son on his own(without the need for Sathyavati) if he wanted.

Parasara muni respected Sathyavathi and hence found her the chosen one to give birth to Veda Vyasa and and would have never considered her just a uterus of the moment.

Veda Vyasa had the highest respect and honour for his mother(Sathyavathi) and eventually fathered Pandu/Dhritarastha/Vidura as per request.

I hope in order to prove the exepction and not the rule scenario we do not resort to think that Parasaramuni had no choice.

A woman becomes a mother not becos a man has no choice but becos she is Gods choice.

P.S. Sage Jamadagni has all the "choice" to chose a same caste wife if he wanted and even he did not and mother of Parashuram was Renuka Devi who was a Kshatriya by birth.
So here once again..its a Varna Sanskar union we see here and that too produced an Avatar.

 

[kalyankumar]

Dear sir,

I dont have much time now to write but I disagree with you about the Sathyavathi being the mother for the moment to conceive Veda Vyasa...thats like not giving her any credit for being the mother of Veda Vyasa.

I am sure Parasara muni was powerful enough to make a son on his own(without the need for Sathyavati) if he wanted.

Parasara muni respected Sathyavathi and hence found her the chosen one to give birth to Veda Vyasa and and would have never considered her just a uterus of the moment.

Veda Vyasa had the highest respect and honour for his mother(Sathyavathi) and eventually fathered Pandu/Dhritarastha/Vidura as per request.

I hope in order to prove the exepction and not the rule scenario we do not resort to think that Parasaramuni had no choice.

A woman becomes a mother not becos a man has no choice but becos she is Gods choice.

P.S. Sage Jamadagni has all the "choice" to chose a same caste wife if he wanted and even he did not and mother of Parashuram was Renuka Devi who was a Kshatriya by birth.
So here once again..its a Varna Sanskar union we see here and that too produced an Avatar.

Sorry, I didnt mean to belittle Sathyavathi when I brought in the Parasara story. The intent was to say that varna sankhara was excused there due to the need of the situation. Sathyavathi is respected and is equally the reason for Vyasa so as Parasara, no doubt. 'Namaph parasara soonum sathyavathi hridaya nandano vyasaha' is how we pray about Sage Vyasa. I agree with God's choice argument as well. But, all I want to say is, let us treat it as an exception and not a rule. By no means, I intend to look at Sathyavathi's part on Sage Vyasa any lesser than Sage Parasara.

Also, we have the saying 'we should not look at rishi moolam and nadhi moolam'. For example, we say we belong to bharadwaja gothram, srivatsa gothram etc, but which gothram did Sage Bharadwaja or Sage Srivatsa belong? So, we dont argue on their origin. That is the traditional view. Even if they were born from mixed NB lineage, so what? We have had generations of brahmin lineage, which has definitely influenced our genetics, vasanas, samskara and other important aspects - due to thousands of years of vedic rites, passed on genes, etc. Should we foresake all these by mixing with other varnas who havent had the similar lineage. What good it serves in doing that? For just a few years of individual's pleasures, should we corrupt the generations of future is the question. If someone doesn't accept varna sankhara as 'corrupting practice', then it is a different thing.

 

[renuka]

Sorry, I didnt mean to belittle Sathyavathi when I brought in the Parasara story. The intent was to say that varna sankhara was excused there due to the need of the situation. Sathyavathi is respected and is equally the reason for Vyasa so as Parasara, no doubt. 'Namasthe parasara soonum sathyavathi hridaya nandano vyasaha' is how we pray about Sage Vyasa. I agree with God's choice argument as well. But, all I want to say is, let us treat it as an exception and not a rule. By no means, I intend to look at Sathyavathi's part on Sage Vyasa any lesser than Sage Parasara.

Also, we have the saying 'we should not look at rishi moolam and nadhi moolam'. For example, we say we belong to bharadwaja gothram, srivatsa gothram etc, but which gothram did Sage Bharadwaja or Sage Srivatsa belong? So, we dont argue on their origin. That is the traditional view. Even if they were born from mixed NB lineage, so what? We have had generations of brahmin lineage, which has definitely influenced our genetics, vasanas, samskara and other important aspects - due to thousands of years of vedic rites, passed on genes, etc. Should we foresake all these by mixing with other varnas who havent had the similar lineage. What good it serves in doing that? For just a few years of individual's pleasures, should we corrupt the generations of future is the question. If someone doesn't accept varna sankhara as 'corrupting practice', then it is a different thing.

Dear Sir,

I will provide info later about the Varna Sanskar corruption practise meaning in BG Chap 1 Stanza 40 explained by Paramahansa Yogananda.
Its totally different from what the literal meaning is.

Dear sir..in your own words you said this:

. For example, we say we belong to bharadwaja gothram, srivatsa gothram etc, but which gothram did Sage Bharadwaja or Sage Srivatsa belong? So, we dont argue on their origin. That is the traditional view. Even if they were born from mixed NB lineage, so what?

I like your last line..So what? Exactly sir..these Maharishis very advocating Vedic lifestyle I believe so their Varna Sanksar genetics didnt hinder them in anyway.
I can safely say that there is "corruption of practise" when senses go out of control and this can happen to any Varna.

Just to add..my maternal grandmum passed away on 29/01/12 she was a brahmin by birth.
Per tradition in their family the Bhagavad Geeta and Garuda Puranam should be read by the priest daily for 8 days.
The priest said he will omit the 8 day reading cos hardly anyone understands sanskrit and very few Brahmins too around to be invited to be the audience.

Now tell me sir..isnt this corruption of practise ? cos the reading of the Geeta and Garuda Puranam to is actually for the Atma to move on but sadly my grandmum was denied this due to a lack of Brahmin crowd.
So I wonder who caused the 'corruption of practise'?

 

[kalyankumar]

Dear Sir,

I will provide info later about the Varna Sanskar corruption practise meaning in BG Chap 1 Stanza 40 explained by Paramahansa Yogananda.
Its totally different from what the literal meaning is.

Dear sir..in your own words you said this:

I like your last line..So what? Exactly sir..these Maharishis very advocating Vedic lifestyle I believe so their Varna Sanksar genetics didnt hinder them in anyway.
I can safely say that there is "corruption of practise" when senses go out of control and this can happen to any Varna.

Just to add..my maternal grandmum passed away on 29/01/12 she was a brahmin by birth.
Per tradition in their family the Bhagavad Geeta and Garuda Puranam should be read by the priest daily for 8 days.
The priest said he will omit the 8 day reading cos hardly anyone understands sanskrit and very few Brahmins too around to be invited to be the audience.

Now tell me sir..isnt this corruption of practise ? cos the reading of the Geeta and Garuda Puranam to is actually for the Atma to move on but sadly my grandmum was denied this due to a lack of Brahmin crowd.
So I wonder who caused the 'corruption of practise'?

First thing, I think you can leave out calling me with a 'Sir' as I am only in my 30s still and can be addressed directly as 'kalyan', no issues.

On your point about 'literal meaning' and 'extended meaning', it is a generally accepted practice that only if 'literal meaning' is repudiated with fallacy, we can go for an extended meaning. If literal meaning can be understood and sticks as argument, stretching the meaning with new dimensions is not acceptable practice. I dont know what Paramahamsa Yogananda said, but re-interpretation can be questioned by traditionalists. For that matter, we can re-interpret varna sangraha in n number of ways ourselves, not very difficult. But, that wont be true to the context of what is told in Bagavad Gita. Just because we want to support varna sankhara we will end up twisting the argument.

To the point on brahmana samskaara, let me take an allegory to explain - Carbon, which is burned wood, becomes graphite under a lot of pressure (already relatively hard). Graphite on its turn under a lot of pressure will eventually become - after a few million years - a diamond. It is formed when extreme heat (temperatures of 2200 degrees Fahrenheit) and extreme pressure cause carbon atoms to crystallize forming the precious stone approximately ninety miles under the earth's surface. They reach the surface of the earth via volcanic pipes, or channels or via placer, alluvial deposits. Then it is polished intensively to be a glittering diamond.

Now, can we say that we can abandon existing diamond and start all over from burning a wood? We are standing today on a pedestral of atleast 10,000 years of brahminical legacy, genes and samskara. Whether a rishi was born of fisher woman or kshathriya or brahmana is immaterial. What is a fact is that our genetics are from a lineage purified by vedic rituals and brahmana sanskara over ages. I for one wouldnt want to sacrifice that nor do I wish my community to sacrifice that. We can loose these things in a matter of days or even hours, but would need ages to build it up.

On what the priest did, I think it is clear he was wrong. But, I wont blame the priests. The problem is always with the 'kartha' who needs to take ownership. Let us say your servant maid doesnt clean the house properly - wont you ensure she corrects it? Same with a car driver or dhobi or an a/c mechanic. But, we dont take ownership on vedic rituals. Priests are doing things on our 'behalf', so it is our duty to ensure he does it right. If the priest doesnt do it right, we should make him do it right or change the priest. From my personal experience, I see our family priest does things better when I am the kartha instead of my father being the kartha. Because he knows that I understand what is going on and I am keen to do it right. He actually explains things to me and executes them. He actually chided me couple of months back when he saw me having a 'swami dollar' in my upaveetham. He said nothing should hang in one's poonool, it is sacred in itself. So, it is always the sincerity of the kartha that makes priests more sincere. I feel most of vaideekas are looking for sincere karthaas these days. Again it is us to blame.

 

[renuka]

First thing, I think you can leave out calling me with a 'Sir' as I am only in my 30s still and can be addressed directly as 'kalyan', no issues.

On your point about 'literal meaning' and 'extended meaning', it is a generally accepted practice that only if 'literal meaning' is repudiated with fallacy, we can go for an extended meaning. If literal meaning can be understood and sticks as argument, stretching the meaning with new dimensions is not acceptable practice. I dont know what Paramahamsa Yogananda said, but re-interpretation can be questioned by traditionalists. For that matter, we can re-interpret varna sangraha in n number of ways ourselves, not very difficult. But, that wont be true to the context of what is told in Bagavad Gita. Just because we want to support varna sankhara we will end up twisting the argument.

To the point on brahmana samskaara, let me take an allegory to explain - Carbon, which is burned wood, becomes graphite under a lot of pressure (already relatively hard). Graphite on its turn under a lot of pressure will eventually become - after a few million years - a diamond. It is formed when extreme heat (temperatures of 2200 degrees Fahrenheit) and extreme pressure cause carbon atoms to crystallize forming the precious stone approximately ninety miles under the earth's surface. They reach the surface of the earth via volcanic pipes, or channels or via placer, alluvial deposits. Then it is polished intensively to be a glittering diamond.

Now, can we say that we can abandon existing diamond and start all over from burning a wood? We are standing today on a pedestral of atleast 10,000 years of brahminical legacy, genes and samskara. Whether a rishi was born of fisher woman or kshathriya or brahmana is immaterial. What is a fact is that our genetics are from a lineage purified by vedic rituals and brahmana sanskara over ages. I for one wouldnt want to sacrifice that nor do I wish my community to sacrifice that. We can loose these things in a matter of days or even hours, but would need ages to build it up.

On what the priest did, I think it is clear he was wrong. But, I wont blame the priests. The problem is always with the 'kartha' who needs to take ownership. Let us say your servant maid doesnt clean the house properly - wont you ensure she corrects it? Same with a car driver or dhobi or an a/c mechanic. But, we dont take ownership on vedic rituals. Priests are doing things on our 'behalf', so it is our duty to ensure he does it right. If the priest doesnt do it right, we should make him do it right or change the priest. From my personal experience, I see our family priest does things better when I am the kartha instead of my father being the kartha. Because he knows that I understand what is going on and I am keen to do it right. He actually explains things to me and executes them. He actually chided me couple of months back when he saw me having a 'swami dollar' in my upaveetham. He said nothing should hang in one's poonool, it is sacred in itself. So, it is always the sincerity of the kartha that makes priests more sincere. I feel most of vaideekas are looking for sincere karthaas these days. Again it is us to blame.

Dear Kalyan,

You know just the other day I was using the same analogy Graphite and Diamond(but in a different manner) when I was in conversation with someone..telling them that even its expensive and glitters like diamonds or its dull and less expensive like graphite in a pencil..its still essentially Carbon.

The Graphite & Diamond analogy somehow always reminds me of this stanza:

Drusha dwichi thra thalpayor bhujanga moukthika srajo,
Garishta rathna loshtayo suhrudhwi paksha pakshayo,
Trunara vinda chakshusho praja mahee mahendrayo,
Samapravarthika kadha sadashivam bhajamyaham


Yes you have your point of maintaining purity of lineage if you wish so..cos thats your right and desire and no one can say its wrong either.

 

[Nara]

My experience in the past is people jump over one another to record their opinion on topics that involve jAti, Brahmin, icm, etc. Strangely enough, this time, Shri kalyankumar's posts are being largely ignored. I have been saying almost exactly what he is saying now, except of course I was coming from diametrically opposite side, and I have had to pay for my audacity, not that I wish Shri kalyankumar to be treated the same way, but I do think he is raising some important questions that must be answered by those who opposed my presentations relentlessly.

When I called for critical thinking, this is what I was advocating, a serious debate between what Shri kalyankumar is saying, i.e. for want of a better word, the traditional Brahmin (TB) view and those who find such strict views uncomfortable yet take pride in Brahmin identity, i.e., again, for want of a better word, expedient Brahmin (EB) -- (I would have used a different term well known to everyone, but given our efforts to be civil I am refraining from terms that may be viewed as pejorative). This is what I mean when I say Brahmins must look inward and take a critical look at what it means to be a Brahmin.

It would be a beneficial exercise for Brahmins if the EBs engage TBs on the views presented by Shri kalyankumar.

Let me make one thing clear, or else I know the usual suspects will be all over me and paint this as my attempt at sowing discord between two groups of Brahmins -- you know who you are. What I am calling for is a civil and rational debate on these issue, between TB and EB, free of any personal attacks, out of which some sort of reformation can/may come about.

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

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Kalyanakumar, Greetings.

..... What is a fact is that our genetics are from a lineage purified by vedic rituals and brahmana sanskara over ages. I for one wouldnt want to sacrifice that nor do I wish my community to sacrifice that. We can loose these things in a matter of days or even hours, but would need ages to build it up.

I refer to your message in post #114.

Genes are all the same in make-up for all the human beings. The messages may slightly differ and gets copied in to billions to have differences like fair skinned, dark skinned, tall, short, talented in variuos skills, brilliant, not so brilliant......... Vedic rituals are just that; vedic rituals. Vedic rituals can not change gene make-up. purification by 'brahmana samskara' is what? Does it mean, genes become 'impure' due to abrahmana samskara? Then, why should should there be any purity in Veda Vyasa's genes? Why should anyone be convinced Parasara had not lost the purity built for ages through vedic rituals?

Genes develop through natural selection. Genes for all the living things on this planet are made of same material, but differ only in messages content. There is no such thing as Brahmana gene or sudra gene.

I agree with one thing though - it may have taken a million year for the present human's gene to develop to where it is. That is about the whole human kind; not just a community.

In the story of evelution of human civilisations, brahmana community may be just as short lived as a soap bubble. Any superiority feelings are just feelings, created by arrogancy.

Cheers!

 

[biswa]

If someone doesn't accept varna sankhara as 'corrupting practice', then it is a different thing.

I guess we must proclaim the President of the United States a result of this 'corrupting practice'. After all, he is the ultimate example of varna shankara (varna being the Sanskrit noun for color). Clearly this practice totally ruined Obama's life and career.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

An excellent and interesting debate between Renukaji and Shri Kalyan Kumar.
Enjoyed it very much.

The Mahabharata is always opined as wonderful precious Literature of our country,
and it is recognized by the entire world. We all should be proud and ever grateful to
the Sage Veda Vyasa, who blessed us with the compendium of realism, wisdom and
compassion both in times of sorrow and darkness. The great literature shows us
the way, guides us the way across and influences everyone in the life.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[sarma-61]

Shri Kalyankumar,

I am not a regular "poster" here. I am also a conservative "Brahmana" trying to adhere to the old ways of life - as far as possible. And I think the main reason is that the lure of an IT job, big salary, foreign tour/settling down, etc., are beyond my ability. With this introduction, I start.

Yes, as you say in the OP, we brahmanas are getting extinct. But even now there are sufficient number of brahmana families which believe in marrying only within their caste and the boys and girls from such families do not "jump the fence" (this is my English translation of a common Malayalam usage, "vEli cADuka", meaning go out of the fence by jumping over it; this signifies the recourse to illegal and unpermitted sex by women, mainly but I think in the present context it can be used for both boys and girls.). So, the complete extinction of the Tamil Brahmin community will take a longer time than what may be seen from the enthusiastic support usually found in this forum for inter-caste, inter-religious, etc. marriages.

According to me the large number of marriages between brahmin girls and NB boys, is happening because the girls are nowadays mostly earning a high salary and they want to "prove" to their parents that they are modern girls, no longer like the girls of old who were always obedient to their parents, elders and so on. Perhaps they also want the thrill of living with a NB and leading a "no holds barred" life style, including their private life; with a brahmin boy as husband, these girls know what type of life they will have, observing their mother, elder sisters and sisters-in-law (who will have hundred and one complaints about their husbands, usually), etc.

But this trend cannot be reversed, I strongly feel. May be the extinction of true Brahmanan is God's plan for Kaliyuga.

 

[kalyankumar]

Sri.Kalyanakumar, Greetings.



I refer to your message in post #114.

Genes are all the same in make-up for all the human beings. The messages may slightly differ and gets copied in to billions to have differences like fair skinned, dark skinned, tall, short, talented in variuos skills, brilliant, not so brilliant......... Vedic rituals are just that; vedic rituals. Vedic rituals can not change gene make-up. purification by 'brahmana samskara' is what? Does it mean, genes become 'impure' due to abrahmana samskara? Then, why should should there be any purity in Veda Vyasa's genes? Why should anyone be convinced Parasara had not lost the purity built for ages through vedic rituals?

Genes develop through natural selection. Genes for all the living things on this planet are made of same material, but differ only in messages content. There is no such thing as Brahmana gene or sudra gene.

I agree with one thing though - it may have taken a million year for the present human's gene to develop to where it is. That is about the whole human kind; not just a community.

In the story of evelution of human civilisations, brahmana community may be just as short lived as a soap bubble. Any superiority feelings are just feelings, created by arrogancy.

Cheers!

This is typical stuff, passed on from west through Nehru's of our world! When we talk of purification, the intent is not to proclaim superiority over others in any worldly terms. The samskaras are done only for spiritual progress and the imbibed attributes are spoken only in the context of elevating oneself in spiritual pursuit and help others as well towards that. What is wrong in taking pride in the fact that for thousands of years our forefathers have invested their life in doing vedic rites and created an influence in physical and mental make up? We are not talking of a Nazi or afghan fundamentalism here, we are only talking of a group which lives on sacrifice, lives on minimal social disturbance, lives on minimal killing for food, which helps others to perform their religious duties, which teaches others on scriptures and righteousness etc. If being proud of being part of a 'good-meaning group' is called 'arrogance' we shouldnt mind being called so.

Whether the scientific definition of 'genes' and 'genetics' doesnt accept the aspect of vedic rite's influence one's physical and mental makeup or not, is immaterial. But, the fact is, that we see a difference in the nature and abilities of various varnas suited for what is ordained by vedas to them. We do widely see kshatriya's physically suited for warfare and brahmanas for vedic learning & performance. If we dont want to include this aspect in the term 'genes', I am fine. Just for want of a term in english for possibly 'vasana' or 'samskara' equivalent, I used the term 'genes'.

Well, on your observation that brahmana community will be a 'soap bubble' in the human civilization is debatable. Atleast in the history of human civilization that we today know of, the brahmana community has always existed. We dont know of an age when it didnt. Whether it will be extinct in the future for a long time is to be seen. Some of us hope that it doesnt. If it does become extinct, I for one is convinced that it will be a loss for not just the community or our country but to the humanity (provided of course, assuming the brahmana were to be a 'true brahmana').

 

[kalyankumar]

Shri Kalyankumar,

I am not a regular "poster" here. I am also a conservative "Brahmana" trying to adhere to the old ways of life - as far as possible. And I think the main reason is that the lure of an IT job, big salary, foreign tour/settling down, etc., are beyond my ability. With this introduction, I start.

Yes, as you say in the OP, we brahmanas are getting extinct. But even now there are sufficient number of brahmana families which believe in marrying only within their caste and the boys and girls from such families do not "jump the fence" (this is my English translation of a common Malayalam usage, "vEli cADuka", meaning go out of the fence by jumping over it; this signifies the recourse to illegal and unpermitted sex by women, mainly but I think in the present context it can be used for both boys and girls.). So, the complete extinction of the Tamil Brahmin community will take a longer time than what may be seen from the enthusiastic support usually found in this forum for inter-caste, inter-religious, etc. marriages.

According to me the large number of marriages between brahmin girls and NB boys, is happening because the girls are nowadays mostly earning a high salary and they want to "prove" to their parents that they are modern girls, no longer like the girls of old who were always obedient to their parents, elders and so on. Perhaps they also want the thrill of living with a NB and leading a "no holds barred" life style, including their private life; with a brahmin boy as husband, these girls know what type of life they will have, observing their mother, elder sisters and sisters-in-law (who will have hundred and one complaints about their husbands, usually), etc.

But this trend cannot be reversed, I strongly feel. May be the extinction of true Brahmanan is God's plan for Kaliyuga.

We can go down, but definitely not without a fight! If we believe that our scriptures are right and the vision of our forefathers have a merit, then it is our duty to defend it. So what we fail at the end, but atleast we would have done our duty.

 

[kalyankumar]

I guess we must proclaim the President of the United States a result of this 'corrupting practice'. After all, he is the ultimate example of varna shankara (varna being the Sanskrit noun for color). Clearly this practice totally ruined Obama's life and career.

Thanks! Very enlightening

 

[kalyankumar]

Dear Kalyan,

You know just the other day I was using the same analogy Graphite and Diamond(but in a different manner) when I was in conversation with someone..telling them that even its expensive and glitters like diamonds or its dull and less expensive like graphite in a pencil..its still essentially Carbon.

The Graphite & Diamond analogy somehow always reminds me of this stanza:

Drusha dwichi thra thalpayor bhujanga moukthika srajo,
Garishta rathna loshtayo suhrudhwi paksha pakshayo,
Trunara vinda chakshusho praja mahee mahendrayo,
Samapravarthika kadha sadashivam bhajamyaham


Yes you have your point of maintaining purity of lineage if you wish so..cos thats your right and desire and no one can say its wrong either.

Nice verse. Even in Gita, bhagavan says, 'brahmana gavi suni pandithaha sama darshinaha' - 'learned ones look at a brahmana, cow, dog etc as all being same parabrahman only'. This is an area where we all find a lot of confusion. On one hand we say varna, non-mixing etc and on the other hand the same scriptures say it is all same parabrahman and we should have a sama-drishti. Paramacharya has dwelt this subject at length. I dont think we can cover it here in detail, being a big subject. But, the point of view here is, the world is diverse and the people in the universe have different make-up and attitude. Not all are same. So, there is a need to structure the society in a system that would help all to lead a better life and grow to be able to see parabrahman in everything. While varna difference can be there in performing duties, the attitude should be definitely one of love and saintly. Even when varna system was prevalent, we find the love, care and bonding between communities to be very strong. I would take the example of saiva saints - appar, sundarar, sambandar and manivachagar. There were from 4 different varnas, but had a great respect for each other and worked together for saiva propagation. Sambandar did not think he was supreme over appar or viceversa. But, that doesnt mean they mixed through marriages.

 

[renuka]

We can go down, but definitely not without a fight! If we believe that our scriptures are right and the vision of our forefathers have a merit, then it is our duty to defend it. So what we fail at the end, but atleast we would have done our duty.

Dear Kalyan,

Defending Dharma and to fight? Isnt that the duty of a Kshatriya?