Being Vegetarian

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Singleliner Ji,

Again, you are asking someone who has taken much time and toiled to post long answers/explanations and you have been posting cryptic, but no information one liners.

For you to ask Srimathi Happy Hindu Ji to be more clear takes quite a bit of hutzpah. Please do not do this again.

Regards,
KRS

HappyHindu sir, I have not said that to hurt you, but only wish, you could have explained it coherently with consistency.

 

[happyhindu]

HappyHindu sir, I have not said that to hurt you, but only wish, you could have explained it coherently with consistency.

??

why shd i be hurt?

if you were to make informative posts and then say something like this, i'd try to improvize.

but coming from you, no sir, i cudn't care.

 

[Singleliner]

Sir, Im sorry

 

[anandb]

Dear HHji

Will rest my case here. I don't want to become a bore for the rest of the members here but I do appreciate the time you have taken to reply to my mails and sharing your thoughts. As always learnt some things from your thought process on this topic.

thanks
anand

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sapthajihva Ji,

My response in this 'color':

This view arises because you primarily look upon the world as if they exist for the gratification of humans. You then talk about ethics; where did ethics evolve from? Again, I repeat, I have nowhere used the word sin; you should introspect as to why I have avoided it. You persistently equate my sentences to mean 'bad karma' or 'sin'. You have missed the mark by miles.
Sir, what is gratification? Is sex gratification? Is love gratification? Is freindship gratification? Is loving a father and mother gratification? And then is eating something that our whole body and mind is designed for gratification? You are the one who says that killing anything is bad. So, if one does it for food, obviously it is 'sin' or 'bad karma', take your pick.

Another group may claim that torture, per se, is not torture at all, but a kind of sacrifice and hence every being is to be tortured. Such groups come and go as the leaves on a tree. But that is not my concern. And again, majority is not always right. You are meandering here. Every act has an effect, whether they be dharmic or adharmic - that is why the enlightened try to attain the samadhi state where there are no thoughts - hence no desires and hence no karma.
Talk about meandering! What I am saying is clear - killing and eating for food is 'dharmic', while your claim is that it is torture and is 'adharmic'. Am I wrong? I am saying your basis of an 'adharmic' conclusion has no basis in our scriptures. Are you challenging this?
I am not writing the mechanics of rocket science; trust you would see the intent in my posts.
Yes, I do.

Popular saying? You are kidding me? How old is this saying? Some jerk has said something in the past and it has been popularised by other jerks who see it as a way to justify their craving for meat. I do not see this as a valid counter at all.
Sir, this alone shows the immaturity of your thinking. "Craving for meat?' as though it is a substance to be 'craved'. This is absolutely from a vegetarian point of view, who probably 'crave' for meat as our body by nature to be an omnivore. I have never encountered a non-vegetarian who 'craves' for meat as they eat it in their diet. I only have encountered people in our community who 'crave' for meat, especially chicken, when they have a drink or two. Are you then talking about vegetarians craving fot meat as not justified?

If I were to take on your word, human svabhava consists of a lot more degrading and debasing acts apart from consuming meat; and the way you put it seems like they are all valid acts! Maybe you should have a word with the lawmakers!
Sir, here you are towing to the Abrahamic religions which consider humans as being born in sin and have all these 'debasing' qualities. I am talking about my religion, Hinduism, which says that we are all perfect when we are born. What are you talking about?

You say: It is like a lion thinking that it is a cow. Just because our mind has certain empathy does not make it natural for it to think opposite to what has been true for millenia.

I say: You think you are a lion and try to compromise the issue - a flawed thought process. The fact that we have a mind and a feeling of empathy is reason enough for us to shun away from killing. It is this discriminatory (using it in the positive sense) power that has spurred humankind to greater pursuits.
What 'greater' pursuits? Again, you are the one who is linking a natural act of consuming meat as an ignoble act. Fine, if as a lion, you want to be a lamb. That works for you. Even you may think it is a 'noble' idea. My point is do not thrust it on others, who are lions and who want to behave as lions.


Again, you are missing the fundamental point here. I am not imposing anything, but merely stating the fact that killing animals for food involves much more karmic results. You are equating sin with karma here, which I do not. Leave the theology aside, and think from a broad based viewpoint rather than the narrow point of just looking after humankind alone. There is merit which you cannot ignore. Your thoughts reek of someone who is concerned with humankind alone. Dharma is not just concerned with humans alone - it encompasses the whole world along with its numerous beings. 'Loka samastha sukhino bavanthu'.
Sir, I am not looking at humans alone. I am looking at the entire living things. Without the supply of sea food, the eskimos will die. Without the supply of meat some human and animal species will die. So, obviously, vegetarianism can not be a universal principle on this fact alone. And combine it with cultural heritage, there is no contest. Non vegetarianism is the overwhelming choice of most of the LIVING species on earth, including our own.

You quote some arbitrary tamil saying and try to justify your point and have the temerity to question the validity of the above. For the record, I did not say that I quoted my point from scriptures, but that I heard it from learned souls. I have given an youtube link in which Shri Velukkudi Krishnan speaks of the above. Be kind so as to lend your ears to it, will you! (esp from the 6:50th minute of play)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2WspCRl5xE&feature=PlayList&p=EC438FF0F4B75C57&index=0&playnext=1

Again, my problem is never agreeing that the vegetarianism is probably a good thing to adopt, but the evangelistic proclamation that non vegetarianism is wrong.

Spoken like the wise. Please apply some of it to your own posts along the way.
Oh, yeah. Cite any one of my posting where I am lacking logic.

Again you are circumventing the issue; there is a huge difference between the traditions which brahmins follow and the heritage (which you purport) of eating meat.

You say: 'What is good for the goose must the good for the geese also'

I say: Definitely as they are one and the same (with a gender difference). But the acts you compare here are are not goose and gander (or rather geese, as in your dictionary). the comparison is null and void.

You say: Then why would you want to label the non vegetarians, who have been after all following the traditions of their forefathers for millenia, for which all our bodies are designed for by Him, as doing something bad and non refined?

I say: Only your capable mind could have thought of such a meaning when all I intended was to show that there are more 'karmic' results (note the absolute term) by killing animals for food.
Again sir, what karmic effects, when one kills for food? Again you are declaring something without any backing!

Why is our tradition different from other peoples' traditions? What is the difference?


Oh well, if you say so, the world could probably turn around on itself upside down, is it?

Dear sir, dharma supports nature. Nature is the result of karma. So in the end, dharma aids karma.
Sir the root of the word 'Dharma' is 'dhir' which is 'what supports nature'. There is no Karma without Dharma. So nature preceeds both Dharma and Karma. I think you need to go back and study our scriptures again.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Singleliner]

KRS, the explantion for 'CRAVING', truly an amazing point.

 

[sapthajihva]

Dear Shri KRS

Sir, what is gratification? Is sex gratification? Is love gratification? Is freindship gratification? Is loving a father and mother gratification? And then is eating something that our whole body and mind is designed for gratification? You are the one who says that killing anything is bad. So, if one does it for food, obviously it is 'sin' or 'bad karma', take your pick.

Sir, the pivotal focus is on the view point and not the gratification itself. You have missed it again.

Talk about meandering! What I am saying is clear - killing and eating for food is 'dharmic', while your claim is that it is torture and is 'adharmic'. Am I wrong? I am saying your basis of an 'adharmic' conclusion has no basis in our scriptures. Are you challenging this?

Yes - through the explanation of the word 'dharma', which i have explained in the last para of this post.

Sir, this alone shows the immaturity of your thinking. "Craving for meat?' as though it is a substance to be 'craved'. This is absolutely from a vegetarian point of view, who probably 'crave' for meat as our body by nature to be an omnivore. I have never encountered a non-vegetarian who 'craves' for meat as they eat it in their diet. I only have encountered people in our community who 'crave' for meat, especially chicken, when they have a drink or two. Are you then talking about vegetarians craving fot meat as not justified?

Again you speak as if but for meat the non-vegetarians would die as there are no other means for their survival? The central focus is whether the act of killing animals for food is required or not. When there are means available to exist, it is adharmic. You twist the theory of nature and try to project that non-veg is natural.

Sir, here you are towing to the Abrahamic religions which consider humans as being born in sin and have all these 'debasing' qualities. I am talking about my religion, Hinduism, which says that we are all perfect when we are born. What are you talking about?

You mistook me here; I was referring to your viewpoint here, as you mentioned that all things which could be performed by the physical/mental limits are natural to the human! So killing other humans, debauchery, adultery etc are all but natural and not to be condemned in your lawbooks.

What 'greater' pursuits? Again, you are the one who is linking a natural act of consuming meat as an ignoble act. Fine, if as a lion, you want to be a lamb. That works for you. Even you may think it is a 'noble' idea. My point is do not thrust it on others, who are lions and who want to behave as lions.

The flaw in your 'natural' theory has been explained above.

Sir, I am not looking at humans alone. I am looking at the entire living things. Without the supply of sea food, the eskimos will die. Without the supply of meat some human and animal species will die. So, obviously, vegetarianism can not be a universal principle on this fact alone. And combine it with cultural heritage, there is no contest. Non vegetarianism is the overwhelming choice of most of the LIVING species on earth, including our own.

Oh, you are so concerned about all the beings that you say that humans kill them out of sympathy, so that they should not exceed their population limits?

The fact that it is an overwhelming choice does not imply that it is natural or dharmic.

If I were to go by the majority rule - what are eskimos as a % to the world populace in other areas? You cannot take an exception to make a general rule!!!

You say: Without the supply of meat some human and animal species will die.

I say: By humans, you mean the eskimos, is it? First, it is ridiculous to note that because the eskimos die due to want of seafood, all humans should engage in non-vegetarianism! Then again, eskimos are probably a group of people who having settled in harsh conditions, tried to adapt. With our good sense of judgement and dharma, it is only right that they move away from those place to those that have better facilities, which can afford a peaceful subsistence to them.

It is like a person jumping into the ocean amidst a pool of sharks and then defending that he HAD to kill the sharks as an act of survival or self defence. Why did he jump in first? Is it not possible to come to dry land now?

Again, my problem is never agreeing that the vegetarianism is probably a good thing to adopt, but the evangelistic proclamation that non vegetarianism is wrong.

Voluntary non-vegeratianims is against the principles of dharma, as explained in my last para. Now it is you who speak like the abrahamists that everything is suited for the benefit of humans alone.

Oh, yeah. Cite any one of my posting where I am lacking logic.

By they way, everyone have their own logic. Missing something here?

Again sir, what karmic effects, when one kills for food? Again you are declaring something without any backing!

Why is our tradition different from other peoples' traditions? What is the difference?

You need to get a grip on what am trying to convey here. Your questions on karmic effects sound rhetoric now. When humans HAVE peaceful methods to exhaust their hunger - for survival/existence, it is against nature to kill an animal for food.

Can you show me any verse from our scriptures where it says that you should kill animals for food unconditionally?

Sir the root of the word 'Dharma' is 'dhir' which is 'what supports nature'. There is no Karma without Dharma. So nature preceeds both Dharma and Karma. I think you need to go back and study our scriptures again.

The root is 'Dhr' which means 'to sustain' or 'to uphold'. It does not say that it should be to uphold 'nature'. You suffix the word nature here because of your belief in 'natural' theory, and so try to justify the act as dharma. How absurd can it get!

Here what should be sustained are those acts which ensure the well being of all beings in the universe. You should not fit it in with your narrow sense of meaning. The meaning is not to imply 'nature' or 'instincts', rather those acts which uphold the welfare of all (not just humans). They need not be acts which are apparently 'natural'.

That is why the meaning of dharma is situational; that is why the same act is sometimes dharmic and sometimes adharmic, because the situations surrounding the act and its effect define it so.

Here in this context, the killing of animals for self defence is dharmic, as self-preservation is most important for any being. So is the case when any being is endangered for survival or existence.

But the situation changes when we are well settled and have no fear of survival. Your 'natural' theory has no basis here. Then when you unduly kill animals claiming that they are for food (when you have aplenty by other means), it is a gross violation of dharma. And acts that are against dharma have strong karmic results.

If you think that I need to read the scriptures again for discussing on this topic, with you, then you need to think again.

 

[happyhindu]

Thanks for this Anand http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-traditions/2290-being-vegetarian-16.html#post26772

Found this just now (typical middle path, my guru said something close to it, abt just not bothering too much abt food and other stuff and simply concentrating on the sadhana): Paramahamsa Nithyananda | Vegetarian vs Non Vegetarian | Being Vegetarian | Indian Master

Regards and best wishes.

 

[anandb]

Just browsing on google and came across this wonderful article on vegetarianism. Quite long but a must read. Aside from what our scriptures say or not say, what this guy says is very compelling that I will save this for my record. It also shatters a lot of stereotypes we hold.

Eating meat isn't natural -- in-depth article

thx,

 

[anandb]

Dear HH

Thanks for this Anand http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-traditions/2290-being-vegetarian-16.html#post26772

Found this just now (typical middle path, my guru said something close to it, abt just not bothering too much abt food and other stuff and simply concentrating on the sadhana): Paramahamsa Nithyananda | Vegetarian vs Non Vegetarian | Being Vegetarian | Indian Master

Regards and best wishes.

Thanks for the link. I was looking for what Nithyananda said on this subject. Interesting words coming from a master. Also producing below what Sathya Sai Baba said about this. Pretty long and only part of the articles talk about food. links below

http://sathyasai.org/discour/2005/d051022.pdf
http://sathyasai.org/discour/2002/d020727.pdf

 

[Singleliner]

I have a simple question. Do animals have soul? If so, is it wrong to kill the body of a soul?

 

[s5surya]

sir
beging vegetarian, first you ar not killing any living jeevan. second your anger and fire inside against other human are drowsed. third being vegetarian your body and soul are in fluid state and with very much difficulty your anger is aroused. finally even by discarding the garlic and onion your desire for women is getting closed.

lastly i am writing this with green colour because green is greenary - nature for which every nurtured human should live and green identify the vegetarian food

pranams and anatha kodi namaskarams

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sapthajihva Ji,

I end my conversation with you by posting this excerpt from the posting on Swami Nityananda. Thank you.

You see: If you are not completely happy abstaining from eating non-veg food, you will compel others to become vegetarians. When you are doing something totally, you will never force another person to do it. Only when you are doing it with a doubt or half-heartedly, you will pull other people also into it. This is the scale to see if you are in something totally or not. When you are total, you are enough unto yourself with no regrets and so you will not trouble anyone else. You will allow them to have their freedom.

In fact, I would go on to say that those who eat non-veg food for one hour a day and forget about it, are better off than those who eat vegetarian food and think about non-veg 24 hours a day!

We fundamentally disagree. You will never convince me that eating meat is adharmic. So, let us agree to disagree and move on.

Regards,
KRS

 

[vijisesh]

Dear s5surya sir ,


Very innocent and straight forward message!

Quite Impressive and most of us have read that onion / garlic controls one's desire ! But cine actor mr.packiaraj brought in drumstick also and made it famous !

Control on the Food is the bottom line , spicy food also triggers impulses , salty food increases pressure and one thing for sure could be a risk to the non-veg eaters , that being the additional hormones that they consume along with the minerals , vitamins , God should help in stopping them from getting horns due to the hormonal imbalances !

sir
being vegetarian, first you ar not killing any living jeevan. second your anger and fire inside against other human are drowsed. third being vegetarian your body and soul are in fluid state and with very much difficulty your anger is aroused. finally even by discarding the garlic and onion your desire for women is getting closed .

lastly i am writing this with green colour because green is greenary - nature for which every nurtured human should live and green identify the vegetarian food

pranams and anatha kodi namaskarams

 

[v.lalithakumar]

dears namaskars.its true that all vegitables are sathvickladiesfinger may be sathick where as drumstick,brinjal,onion,fetc are ofprobably thamasic andbeetroot,carat are of rajasic in nature.so the type of vegetable may also add to to the guna. it may be the reason on certain holy days taking onion like vegetables are avoided.with pranams. v.lalithakumar

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Anand,

Thanks for the posts. Yes i too know that many (if not almost all) of Satya Sai's devotees are vegetarian and Satya Sai encourages vegetarian diet.

I also know of ppl who pride in being a vegetarian and a teetotaller (the sort that do not miss prayers a single day), but are highly corrupt government officials. They neither have a heart for difficulties faced by others nor wish to help (though their official positions put them in a spot where they can ensure corrupt-free provision of good roads, water, sanitation and electricity to the best of their abilities in certain areas. They are more intrested in contractors submitting tenders that bring commissions). Not sure veggie diet has caused any sattvik qualities in them. So in terms of ethics, compassion, etc, there is still a long way to go, not just diet alone.

In this topic (of diet and the act of killing linked to dharma), i think we will find answers both ways. Because the scriptures are such. The conclusions are what each of us interpret. The argument can go on forever without a conclusion. Therefore in this matter i suppose we have concluded to move on.

Thankyou for the conversation. Lets meet on an other thread.

Regards and best wishes.

 

[vijisesh]

Ethics Morals & Principles are key essentials in the Livelihood of a Human clearly demarcating him from Animals and it will not be worth a risk to try something new , that could cause jeopardy to the individual practices and his well being !

I am unable to reason out, to what extent one's eating habits could be linked to his principles / ethics in life ??

It is well known that Anything done in Moderation does not cause harm but when done excessively can cost a healthy lifestyle --- An independent research done a few years ago has proved that Vegetarians also have high cholestrol levels due to their excessive consumption of ghee , oil etc .

 

[sapthajihva]

Dear Shri KRS

Dear Sri sapthajihva Ji,

I end my conversation with you by posting this excerpt from the posting on Swami Nityananda. Thank you.

You see: If you are not completely happy abstaining from eating non-veg food, you will compel others to become vegetarians. When you are doing something totally, you will never force another person to do it. Only when you are doing it with a doubt or half-heartedly, you will pull other people also into it. This is the scale to see if you are in something totally or not. When you are total, you are enough unto yourself with no regrets and so you will not trouble anyone else. You will allow them to have their freedom.

In fact, I would go on to say that those who eat non-veg food for one hour a day and forget about it, are better off than those who eat vegetarian food and think about non-veg 24 hours a day!

We fundamentally disagree. You will never convince me that eating meat is adharmic. So, let us agree to disagree and move on.

Regards,
KRS

The topic was on discussion and hence my views. Not to assumed that my mission is to convert people to vegetarianism or to win a debate here.

And neither can you convince me that eating meat is dharmic.

एको धर्म: परं श्रेय: क्षमैका शान्तिरुत्तमा I
विद्यैका परमा तृप्तिरहिंसैका सुखावहा II

Dharma is the highest good; forgiveness, the best means to peace; knowledge brings most satisfaction; and not-violence alone brings the greatest happiness. (Udyoga Parva of the Mahabharatha)

Peace.

 

[Brahmanyan]

vijisesh[/B];26865]Ethics Morals & Principles are key essentials in the Livelihood of a Human clearly demarcating him from Animals and it will not be worth a risk to try something new , that could cause jeopardy to the individual practices and his well being !

I am unable to reason out, to what extent one's eating habits could be linked to his principles / ethics in life ??

Dear Sri Vijisesh,

While agreeing with your views I wish to continue further on the subject with a quote from the famous book "Man the Unknown" by Nobel Laurette Dr. Alexis Carrel - " Among the numerous concepts relating to the human being, some are mere logical constructs of our mind. We do not find in the outer world any being to whom they apply. The others are purely and simply the result of experience."
Interestingly we are a mixture of Ethical, Moral, Scientific and Social concepts. Which changes according to our environmental needs. Our experience is our Guide and Guru.The noted neuroscientist Dr.V.S.Ramachandran says ".... that the human brain is primarily an organ of cultural sophistication and diversity. It is this trait above all that makes us absolutely unique in the animal kingdom". Thus we can justify any of our actions including the nature of food that we consume. We abhor killing of any living thing on one hand and at the same time spend millions of dollars on the manufacture of Arms and ammunition for the annihilation of our own race. Where is the ethics in this?

Just as any other aspect of Cultural refinement our food habits also have changed considerably in the course of time from coarse grain , meat, and alcoholic drinks, (in Vedic times) to much more delicate and varied "soft" food which includes vegetarian food, perhaps due to influence of Saivism and Jainism. There is nothing moral or immoral in the kind of food that we take.

It is my personal choice to be a vegetarian. Nothing more than that. I do not attach any ethical or moral value for this.

Regards,

Brahmanyan.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Vijisesh Ji and Sri Brahmanyan Ji,

When the majority in the world practices non vegetarianism, it can not be an immoral or 'adharmic' act. Most of the society's laws are created on the basis of the survival of the society, and it's own perception of what is right and wrong.

Take the instance of sentencing a murderer to a death sentence. There is not a consensus on this around the world. Some of the same people, I suspect who advocate against killing animals for food, would gladly see a 'terrorist' sentenced to die.

As people who now live in 'modern times' I have seen the artificial 'culling' of some species in the U.S. where certain species dominate their natural living space without a natural balance - e.g., horses and wolves. This is because of the artificial 'no hunting' regimes introduced by men, as they do not want to control the population of these animals. In the end though, to maintain the balance, lest other speceis would die out, these animal populations are controlled just by mass extermination.

There are many more instances I can cite where 'vegetarianism' and 'selective non-vegetarianism' in a 'civilized world' actually are doing quite a bit of harm in the food chain.

But one has to balance this with what Sri Venkataramani Ji talks about in terms of global warming.

It then seems to me, this all boils down to one's own personal choice, without any recriminations heaped against those who prefer a non vegetarian cuisine on bad karma, sin, adharma etc. This is my view.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Brahmanyan]

Dear Sri KRS,

I fully agree with your views. In fact you have summed up the whole issue of Vegetarian vs non-vegetarian in the last few lines nicely.Thanks.

Warm regards,

Brahmanyan.

 

[kunjuppu]

mosquitoes.

recently, i was in chennai, and in the house where i stayed, they had this tennis racket like instrument, which was basically high power electric grid (for mosquitoes), charged through normal electric plugging.

as it was shortly after the rains, needless to say, chennai was swarming with mosquitoes. i had a ball of a time, swishing away this gadget, - backhand, forehand, sideways and strokes reminiscent of my old cricket days.

overall, i must have dispatched over a hundred mosquitoes to the mosquito heaven.

now, you might wonder what this has to do with vegetarianism?

the question, comes to the killing of living things. mosquitoes are very much alive, and do remind us of their intentions, through a jet like whine dive bomb approach towards our cuticles.

their needs are not much.. less than a drop of blood; after all most of us have between 5-6 litres of the red stuff stored in us, and are capable of constant replenishment.

personally, i had no problem committing those mass murders against mosquitoes.

without any hint of rhetoric, and more with a sense of curiosity, i wonder how those vegetarians, who prize 'life' very much, view my mass assault on the anopholes and its cousins?

it is under these conditions, that i am overwhelmed by those jain monks, who forever keep their mouths closed, lest they inadvertently swallow the smallest of living amoeba.

on a realistic note, i think, it is killing familiar animals to whom we have a sentimental attachment, that drives our behaviour.

even the most ardent modern day vegetarian, i think, would not mind taking a swat or two, at a dog or a snake if it stands in the veggie's path. but it is another matter if the creature involved was a chicken, pig or cow.

then there are the mice... almost all of us have no norms against setting traps for these creatures, and feeding them to the cats.

sometime ago, there was this pet store, which had piranhas in its display window. precisely every noon, a few dozen live goldfish used to be dumped in the tank as food for the piranhas.

this was a popular tamasha and used to attract crowds. till, peta (people for ethical treatment of animals) got into the game, and warned of dire consequences if this was not stopped.

now, for all who don't know about peta: it is an extremist vegetarian society, which has not qualms killing a few humans, to save the animals.

the pet store folks, took the peta warning seriously, and soon enough, the public feeding of the piranhas was stopped.

 

[RVR]

Sri Kunjuppu ji,

Killing is different from eating. We apply pesticides in the farm fields. Lot of people belonging to our community still continue farming and apply pesticides

We have to differenciate between eating and killing. If we don't kill pests and rats, we will not get food grains.

 

[kunjuppu]

thanks venkat.

i am very practical and would kill bugs, insects and anything else that annoys or threatens me.

the post was more a musing and reflection of a thought that occurred when i woke up this morning.

by the way, the peta people are violent vegetarians and are termed as among the terrorist groups in several western countries.

peta has no issues going into labs, and freeing all the animals and driving them into the wild (where they perish anyway).

 

[drsundaram]

Correct . Kasi brahmins are by nature non vegetarians. so also, I think, Bengai Brahmins. The very name brahmins does not imply sativic in all respects over all. Tamil brahmins have tight controls and niyamams. Can we have from learned people of any authentic references as to how tamil brahmins are isolated from the other lots of brahmins and justifications in respect to adhere to strict norms.