Shri TBT,
When we talk of "our culture", I have seen that more often than not the reference is to the culture which goes back to the vedic times. Hence, if we are talking about, say, the last 500 or 800 years, it will be better to specify that.
If we consider "our culture" that which has come right from vedic times, we have documentary evidence in our smritis to prove that NV was accepted, nay compulsory, for Sraaddhas. Even the system of Sraaddhas has undergone radical changes over the centuries. There is therefore nothing but your own mental image of some mirage-like "our culture". Just as the insistence on NV food for the Sraaddha Baahmanas seems to have completely vanished, for not clarly known reasons, it is quite possible that whatever you consider as "our culture" today may also simply vanish. In taking a policy decision that our individual preferences need not be imposed upon the society as a whole, we are just following democratic norms only.
Dear Sangom
True, culture appears a loose word, but culture is the overall collective wisdom at this point of time. As Renuka said once, it is evolving all the time. i am not saying it should be left static as the responsibility to evolve it is with us.
Our civilizational progress will depend on how we evolve our culture. If we evolve it in wrong ways, we will perish, get subjugated and and be replaced. This is the Dharma that operates on top of everything. If we evolve it in right ways, we will sustain, prosper, give the world what it needs.
Brahman (which I translate as expansion/evolution) is all-encompassing and we are all bound by it.
So what is good and what is bad is always a fight, for nobody can say confidently what is good, what is bad.
A guideline that we can have is, when we deal with collective wisdom such as culture and want to evolve it or change it, do it carefully and err on the side of caution. Evolve it slowly.
From the Puranic times (I disagree with Vedic times, as my studies show that none knows what vedic times were really about and we are simply believing the half-interpretations of western scholars) to times of Krishna and further Sankara and down to Ramanuja, our interpretations and understanding has never been static and has been changing/evolving. Hence the debate on Meat eating.
Manu smrit says it is not a sin, but avoiding it is beneficial. Krishna says avoid it. Sankara and Ramanuja stressed that it is not in line with our dharma. I think these should have happened based on the learnings of the society over a period. (I don't want to trivialize it as Buddhist influences..)
Coming to this debate, it is specifically about Tam Brahms as a Jati. When I corroborate it with science, I see that continuing our practice is said to be safe and sound and even beneficial. So let's continue it.
Let not individuals whims and fancies override our collective wisdom of past. As I said before, none can say what is right and what is wrong. If we go wrong, Dharma is going to make us un-sustainable and perish us.
-TBT
