Dear Shri kalyankumar, Greetings!
Thank you for your thoughtful response. In my previous exchanges with other interlocutors, by this time many a nasty invectives would be have been thrown at me like Brahmin Hater, etc. I appreciate the fact you have spared me of such torments.
I know I am in the minority here, with the departures of some stalwarts I am probably a minority of ONE now. So I don't expect to win popularity contest here, but not being subjected to abuses is all I ask for.
You have eloquently described a vision of vedic principle, life, but I am afraid it is highly romanticized. The reality that can be gleaned from some of the texts from those times paint a very different picture. I have presented these evidences in the past. We have had protracted discussions as well. So, with some trepidation that I may be charged with grinding the same batter again (அரைச்ச மாவையே அரைக்கிறான்), I venture to restate some of them.
[1] Case of Satyakama Jabala
This occurs during the Upanishad period. Some may contest only poorva mimamsa is Vedic culture and the ideas expressed in the Upanishads is a rejection of traditional Vedic period. But I don't want to get into that debate at this point.
In this story, Jabala forthrightly says she had to pleasure many visitors and therefore can't be sure who the father is. Her honesty is praiseworthy. Sathyakama shows equally praiseworthy honesty by stating clearly what his birth status is to Gautama. Gautama acted honorably too by accepting him as his pupil.
Then what is the problem you may ask. The problem is, Satyakama knew he would be asked who his father was, and Gautama did. This clearly shows interest in study is not the criterion for admission, birth status is. This may not be a problem for you as you support such segregation, but this is part of the sore I was talking about, one that you can't see but those who are not Brahmins see all too clearly.
But, there is another point to take into account. Gautama says only a Brahmana will tell the truth and therefore you must be a child of a Brahmana. This is as obnoxious as it can get on at least couple of levels. Being truthful is supposed to be a samanya dharma, nothing special to Brahmana, yet there is this usurpation of the character of truthfulness to just Brahmanas. Secondly, if the boy's father was adjudged a Brahmin, then this Brahmana certainly availed of the services of Jabala and then abandoned her. What kind of a Brahmana was he?
[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.
[3] Treatment of lower varnas
Ramarajyam is supposed to be a time of true vedic life with dharma all over. Yet, a Shudra wanted to study the Vedas and had to be killed. What is the meaning of this? Whether this actually took place or not, the author who inserted this story was sending a message to the Shudras of that time. What was the need to send such a message? Obviously, during a time when Brahmanas held sway the Shudras happily accepted their station as servants is a fiction.
There are many more, I am not even citing any Dharmashastras.
So, the reality as may be gleaned from these paints a very different picture than the romanticized one you present.
...Contemporarily, I think the minimum qualities of braahmana are ...
The qualities you cite are fictional, not even the great Vedic rishis like Viswamithra the giver of Gayatri or Dhurwasa lived up to it according to even the fictional accounts.
I think varna system in "its entirely" is obsolete and all said and done, it was a system put forth by vedas for enabling society to perform various duties and yet align the duties to ones nature so that one can progress spiritually. Truly this was the intent of the system.
Once again, there is evidence to show such matching of innate nature to duties was mere fiction. The Brahmanas were primarily interested in collecting as high a dhaksina as possible for the ritual services they offered. Shri Sangom had written a lot about these Vedic Brahmanas.
Same way, a person born as shudra was to be performing physical labour through which to elevate oneself towards the moksham.
Moksham is not a Vedic concept, it is Vedantic concept. Leaving that aside, to say that physical labor elevates Shudras reveals why what I said about Brahmins not being able to see the ugly sore in the face of Brahminism is so true. This is a tragedy.
We need to understand why the varna system was an excellent system. ... Same holds for choice of job, choice of partner, choice of lifestyle - every one is unsure, unhappy about choices made, often blaming others & surroundings for ones unhappiness.
So, not having a choice makes this Varna system an excellent system. This is well and good if you are Brahmana male, for everyone else this is the most obnoxious aspect of Varna system.
Anyway, please read Annihilation of Caste by Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar for a critical analysis of Varna system and why it must be annihilated from the face of the earth. Try to answer his questions if you can, Gandhi tried, but failed miserably.
So, if there is a choice of such a rule and society to come back again, well I would vote for it. .... But the braahmana's dharma cannot be done by others due to various stipulations. We cant argue this, as the pramaana here is only vedas and it is only driven by our 'shraddhaa' that we make this statement - 'why' for this question cannot be answered in any other way. But, if doing other varnaa's job will elevate one towards moksha is a question possibly difficult to answer.
Why others cannot do the Brahmana's dharma? Don't ask, that is just the way it is because Vedas say so? This is what Brhamnical Supremacy is all about, the sore you just can't see but very well visible to all others.
Alright, please tell me where in Vedas proper, not Dharmashasthras, it is said that others are not stipulated to do Brahmana's dharma?
Besides, what you are saying directly contradicts what Lord Sri Krishna says in Srimat BG. Did he not say it is better to do one's own dharma badly than to do others dharma excellently? So, to say a Shudra's dharma can be done by anybody, but a Brahmana's dharma only a Brahmana can do, is not only very conveniently hypocritical, but goes against your own BG.
...My own friend's grandfather, who was a vaideeka, was travelling in a train and was doing his sandhya in a tap at vizhuppuram railway station when the train was halting. Periyar, who was in the I class compartment, stepped out and prostrated to the vaideeka and said, '
It seems this is at best a second hand information, very hard to verify its authenticity.
If it is true, then Suraju, sarang and others who routinely call EVR by a range of choice epithets like goon and Brahmin hater, etc., have something to think about.
However, the point I want to make is this, "vaideeka" doing sandhya in a water tap? During that time "true" Vaideekas didn't even travel in trains or buses, where they have to come into contact with ordinary folks, you know avoiding "mixing" thing. So, with due respects, this Vaideeka obviously didn't mind relaxing that rule.
Further, even today true Vaideekas, who have taken to even flying, do not consume tap water. So, this Vaideeka may have been seen by his contemporaries as someone not living up to the standards. This is reality, talk of a past glorious time when people lived by Vedic principles and rules, whatever they may be, is nothing but myth.
So, in my view, it is brahmins' own perception that NBs perceive true brahmins as 'ugly sore', but reality is different, check it out in all earnest, you will find out the truth.
You mistake deference to acceptance. Yes, people hate hypocrisy more. They have less respect for a secular Brahmana living a modern lifestyle suddenly masquerading as a Brahmana when it is convenient to him -- they may think, look at this hypocrite, he thinks he is great, but just putting on an act. When they see a Brahmana who takes the trouble that comes along with Brahmin lifestyle, they have respect for the man's sincerity, i.e. his effort to avoid being hypocritical.
But, this does not mean they acquiesce to the ideology of Brahminism. If you tell them half of what you have written here, like genetics, diamond, shudras are born for physical labor, etc., you will see what I mean, even if you are attired like a pacca vaideeka.
Look at the youngsters who have tasted carnatic music, and those who have developed taste for vedic chanting etc.
You are conflating cultural aspects like music and dancing with Vedic life. You do this at your own peril. How many kids do sandhyavandnam after upanayanam, which is the most important Vedic ritual? If the interest of the youngsters is in Vedic rituals you ought to see the opposite of what we see -- i.e. youngsters clamoring to do 3 times sandhya. But the reality is, the young boy, if cajoled, will do it for a week or two, if that.
As these youngsters get older, meeting a wide variety of people, reading a variety of books, getting exposed to a wide range of ideas, increasingly reject the archaic, anachronistic and mostly fictional notion of Vedic life.
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
!!
