• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Do we follow some norms and ethics in this forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

... The seminal question here is not about what is 'right', because what is 'right' in a social context is about evolving civilization. What is wrong today was not wrong in the past in terms of soc ial acceptance.
Yes, nobody can claim to be the keeper of the truth. But I believe debates can clarify and illuminate facts, and for this reason alone debate, even when not followed by tangible action, is not a useless waste of time.

If I remember right, your response was that you did not hurt your elders; feelings.
Yes, I don't see any point in adding to the burden and unhappiness of people already caught in their own circumstance with no possibility of escape. But, when we talk about the past, the antecedents of our present, a worthy objective I see is owning up responsibility, if not guilt. Only when we refuse responsibility we become guilty, IMO.

For example, I think my elders were wrong in the way they treated their sambhandees from the girl's side. I feel it was downright cruel. I even feel ashamed sometimes. At the same my respect for the elders is not diminished in any way.

Another example, IMO, Swami Sri Desikan, by far the most eminent of SV acharyas after Bhagavat Ramanuja, was primarily responsible for clamping down caste system back on SVs. He even wrote a definitive chapter on the limit to which an NB Bhagavatha can be respected. He equated NB Bhagavathas to a cows, he said, a temple cow can be given lot of respect, but we must not forget that he is still like a cow. This makes me very sad, SSD sounds like a veritable bigot. But I still respect him and hold him in awe as one the truly brilliant minds India produced.

What I am driving at is, we can respect our ancestors and still reject some of their beliefs. Debates can hep us separate the outdated and discredited ideas from the ones that are truly elevating.

Cheers!
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I agree with you. Yes, we can and should reject past ideas / practices that do not fit for life today. But my point is that the human society progresses each day and there is no need to look back in shame, applying today's norms to yester yerar's societal norms.

I am a firm believer in the dictum that one should be judged and treated by others on one's own merit as a full human being today. He/She should not pay for the past 'sins' committed by his/her forefathers. When we demonize our ancestors based on today's standards, we do a disservice to our own selves.

Debates will only change hearts if one is not put in a defensive mode, based on one's emotional grasp to the past to define oneself. Lots of times, the progressives seem to forget this, wanting to eradicate all evil at one go.

Regards,
KRS
 
This is to the folks who have responded to my posting:

There are many folks here who attach vedic or other sayings at the end of their messages. I was only referring to those who were, in my opinion, said and did things contrary to those messages. If you think that I unfairly made my comment about you, I can only say that please look at your reaction. If you were acting in a way that did not fit my description, then why fret?

I did not mean to say what I said to hurt anyone's feelings. I gave examples to highlight our problems as a community. If you can show me that I am wrong in my assessment with concrete examples, I will stand corrected and apologize.

But the emotional outbursts I see here are just that - emotional.

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I agree with you. Yes, we can and should reject past ideas / practices that do not fit for life today. But my point is that the human society progresses each day and there is no need to look back in shame, applying today's norms to yester yerar's societal norms.
I think it is not a question of feeling ashamed but only an effort to reiterate that there were historical reasons, very valid at that, for the dislike for brahmins. This becomes necessary at times because many Bs still like to take the view that it was in the past, we were not doing it, etc., but stop short of really giving a signal to the NBs that we are a genuinely changed lot. This creates a curious situation; towards the NBs we still feel that we are somehow superior to them because of the 'glorious' deeds of our ancestors, while, to anyone pointing out that what they feel glorious, was not so creditable after all, they try to take cover under the very argument of yours, viz., that we were not responsible.

I am a firm believer in the dictum that one should be judged and treated by others on one's own merit as a full human being today. He/She should not pay for the past 'sins' committed by his/her forefathers. When we demonize our ancestors based on today's standards, we do a disservice to our own selves.
This is not clear to me. If one is to be judged and treated by others on one's own merit, how will his admitting the wrong deeds of his ancestors decrease his worth? On the contrary, will it not enhance his fairmindedness in other's views? Further, we are not trying to "demonize" our ancestors, but if what they did or believed was such, how can it be helped? For example, will anyone today say that the aztecs were a very kind-hearted people?

Debates will only change hearts if one is not put in a defensive mode, based on one's emotional grasp to the past to define oneself. Lots of times, the progressives seem to forget this, wanting to eradicate all evil at one go.
How one takes to a debate decides whether one goes into a defensive mode; obviously both sides will have to defend their respective standpoints and the one who is weaker in arguments and/or supporting evidence will feel that he is on the defensive. If one cannot debate further on strong supporting grounds, one has to magnanimously concede defeat to the victor, but still in today's debates we don't require the vanquished to become the victor's slave or sishya as is narrated in our religious history. If you feel that the weaker party in a debate has to be given some sort of psychological help so that his ego does not get hurt etc., I think such weak-minded people with bloated egos should not enter into a debate first of all.
 
Last edited:
This is to the folks who have responded to my posting:

There are many folks here who attach vedic or other sayings at the end of their messages. I was only referring to those who were, in my opinion, said and did things contrary to those messages. If you think that I unfairly made my comment about you, I can only say that please look at your reaction. If you were acting in a way that did not fit my description, then why fret?

I did not mean to say what I said to hurt anyone's feelings. I gave examples to highlight our problems as a community. If you can show me that I am wrong in my assessment with concrete examples, I will stand corrected and apologize.

But the emotional outbursts I see here are just that - emotional.

Regards,
KRS


Sri KRS,

I have absolutely no problem even if I am criticized.

I always welcome constructive criticisms.

All the best
 
Sri KRS,

I have absolutely no problem even if I am criticized.

I always welcome constructive criticisms.

All the best

Dear Sri RVR Ji,

I said what I said to illustrate a point. My intention was to give examples on why as a community we do not seem to get united as well as why 'self moderation' is not effective.

Thank you for your response, but my intention was not to crticize anyone in particular.

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

Shri sangom has given a wonderful response to your post addressed to me, he has put in words my thoughts much better than I ever can. So, I will just attach my name at the bottom of Shri sangom's response and leave it at that.


.... I was only referring to those who were, in my opinion, said and did things contrary to those messages. If you think that I unfairly made my comment about you, I can only say that please look at your reaction. If you were acting in a way that did not fit my description, then why fret?

Please allow me to make an observation about this matter though.

When a criticism is offered without naming anyone, then, the tendency is for everyone to wonder whether he/she is the intended target. For example, there are two statements that are regularly made in this form,

  • there are some here who want to promote their hidden agenda, and
  • there are people here who want to show off their knowledge.
The writer obviously has somebody in mind, but the statement is so vague it could be taken by anyone to mean him/her, developing ill feeling towards the poster. It muddies the water and does not promote anything positive.

Let me give a concrete example, Raju stated earlier in this very thread quite pithily, "நிறை குடம் தளும்பும். குறை குடமோ கூத்தாடும்." From the interactions we have had, I think this was a dart sent towards yours truly. By not stating it outright I am imagining, rightly or wrongly, that everyone must have gotten the message, but Raju can still maintain, why do you fret unless you think of yourself as one? (Raju, take it easy, this is just an example, your remark did not bother me, I had a good laugh.)

I think deliberately veiled criticisms need to be avoided as much as possible -- they insert unnecessary ill feelings that don't get aired and sorted out, low-grade conflicts continue, unresolved misunderstandings persist -- not good for our own peace of mind and that of our forum.

There are times when it is better to not name anyone in particular, but that should be for the purposes of promoting something good without embarrassing anyone.

Thanks for indulging me Shri KRS, I hope I have not been too forward ....

Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

Your message is indeed valid. Yes, if criticism is noffered to correct someone, it has to be done by naming names. In fact, in the past, when I was a moderator, I often commented on indirect comments from a few clearly targeted against others.

When I commented on folks having 'hidden agenda', there is not just one but many many folks who have participated in the Forum in the past as well as the present have them (perhaps myself included). There is nothing to be done, to correct in this regard. Again, as I have said, my intention was to illustrate a point, nothing else. It is no secret that in the past I have named names, one on one. But, here, I was illustrating a point about the thread's topic.

Hope this explains.

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Sri RVR Ji,

I said what I said to illustrate a point. My intention was to give examples on why as a community we do not seem to get united as well as why 'self moderation' is not effective.

Thank you for your response, but my intention was not to crticize anyone in particular.

Regards,
KRS

Thanks Sri KRS,

It is very difficult to unite any community and our community is no exception to that rule.

Let us all try to do some thing to the poorer sections of our community. At least on this single point I hope majority of us here will be united . If we do that then it will make lot of difference in the life of such people.

Let us support on educating poorest of our boys. Let us do timely help for medication of our elders. If we do these two, the forum will be noticed by all the members of our community.

I am sure you will agree with me on the above.

All the best
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,
My response is in 'blue' below:
I think it is not a question of feeling ashamed but only an effort to reiterate that there were historical reasons, very valid at that, for the dislike for brahmins. This becomes necessary at times because many Bs still like to take the view that it was in the past, we were not doing it, etc., but stop short of really giving a signal to the NBs that we are a genuinely changed lot. This creates a curious situation; towards the NBs we still feel that we are somehow superior to them because of the 'glorious' deeds of our ancestors, while, to anyone pointing out that what they feel glorious, was not so creditable after all, they try to take cover under the very argument of yours, viz., that we were not responsible.
The problem with your argument is this. When one says that as a person born in to a Brahmin family I need to take 'ownership' of how anyone else is treated in the past, it perpetuates the issue. History is full of deeds by many, that we would consider as cruel today, by today's standards. I do not feel superior to any other human being, period. If some others feel that way, then, please do not include me in that category. Our community, as a whole has changed and is still changing in our attitudes. It surely will change completely over time. So what is the need for me to take ownership of the past, to do what? Apologize?
This is not clear to me. If one is to be judged and treated by others on one's own merit, how will his admitting the wrong deeds of his ancestors decrease his worth? On the contrary, will it not enhance his fairmindedness in other's views? Further, we are not trying to "demonize" our ancestors, but if what they did or believed was such, how can it be helped? For example, will anyone today say that the aztecs were a very kind-hearted people?
I can only control what I am today. I have no control over what my ancestors did or did not do. There are many reasons why the TN NBs do not seem to like our community in general. But as I have said, if each one of us live by today's mores, then there would not be any issues. No need to explain the past and apologize for it. Apologizing for the past but not changing the behaviour is worse.
How one takes to a debate decides whether one goes into a defensive mode; obviously both sides will have to defend their respective standpoints and the one who is weaker in arguments and/or supporting evidence will feel that he is on the defensive. If one cannot debate further on strong supporting grounds, one has to magnanimously concede defeat to the victor, but still in today's debates we don't require the vanquished to become the victor's slave or sishya as is narrated in our religious history. If you feel that the weaker party in a debate has to be given some sort of psychological help s Noneo that his ego does not get hurt etc., I think such weak-minded people with bloated egos should not enter into a debate first of all.
Vow! On one hand you seem to appreciate today's treatment of the vanquished, but then on the other you show no mercy. Actually, 'debate' is not the correct word to use here. Debate requires knowledge and skill. What we are doing here can be more aptly termed as bantering. No human being is without the emotional part.

Regards,
KRS
 
Shri sangom has given a wonderful response to your post addressed to me, he has put in words my thoughts much better than I ever can.
Dear Prof.,

I feel flattered by your compliments. Actually I felt like writing out my views though I knew you would respond anyway.

When a criticism is offered without naming anyone, then, the tendency is for everyone to wonder whether he/she is the intended target. For example, there are two statements that are regularly made in this form,

  • there are some here who want to promote their hidden agenda, and
  • there are people here who want to show off their knowledge.
  • I have noticed one more tendency which is to come in with an advice that all this discussion is of no use, one should better strive to realize the truth, or something to that effect. I wonder why such people waste their valuable time in going through these wasteful pages instead of themselves striving to realize the brahman, or, is it that they have already accomplished it and have kindly come down to our level to advise us!
The writer obviously has somebody in mind, but the statement is so vague it could be taken by anyone to mean him/her, developing ill feeling towards the poster. It muddies the water and does not promote anything positive.
I think in the name of being decent they are unconsciously fouling the atmosphere.

Let me give a concrete example, Raju stated earlier in this very thread quite pithily, "நிறை குடம் தளும்பும். குறை குடமோ கூத்தாடும்." From the interactions we have had, I think this was a dart sent towards yours truly. By not stating it outright I am imagining, rightly or wrongly, that everyone must have gotten the message, but Raju can still maintain, why do you fret unless you think of yourself as one?
Actually I felt it was directed at me, at my audacity in correcting the rik wrongly posted by another learned member especially since it immediately followed mine.

I think deliberately veiled criticisms need to be avoided as much as possible -- they insert unnecessary ill feelings that don't get aired and sorted out, low-grade conflicts continue, unresolved misunderstandings persist -- not good for our own peace of mind and that of our forum.
I second this with all the force at my command.
 
Last edited:
I have a permanent quote from Rig Vedha at the end of my postings.

Let me try to understand the meaning of the quote from Rig Vedha

All the best

Sri RVR,

I was attracted by this quote many many years ago when I started reading "Bhavan's Journal" - published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. The above quote given as logo in first page top, with the sanskrit oiginal and english translation as you use as your signature.

It induces one to seek more and more knowledge, from all around.


I believ that there is nothing wrong in using a word or phrase or proverb, even if one does not know the full and extensive explanation in depth.
Simple knowledge is a starting point. Even pretense is a starting point. It is a trigger for full search and find.

Only from ignorance, one can go to knowledge. Full knowledge cannot be the starting point.It is only the final goal or end.

How many people who shout looking at sky know the meaning of the revolutionary word" Inquilab Zindabad" daily heard in Kerala,West Bengal etc.
How many people know in which language it is? Or for that matter the word commonly used by communists to denote their " class enemies" the bourgeois" ? The followers strongly believe the leader,and repeat what is yelled by him. It is just that. May be a few in them may venture to learn further.

Some words and terms attract us. So we tend to use it first just as a copycat, then gradually understand the superficial meaning, and graduate to know the essence and depth. These type of many words are used in the computer fileld, in blogs and forums, in general conversation. Some of them if we try to go deep may turn meaningless.

A little child reciting "Twinkle Twinkle Little star.... up above the world..... in the sky"

When it was pronouncing the words " in the sky" it was looking at its own hand and feeling that the meaning was " in the kai"( in the hand"). Nobody found fault.Nobody expected it to know the full meaning. A little innocent gesticulation, a similar sounding repetition ....were all that was needed to entertain the adults around, and make the parents feel proud. But the same child would have learnt the meaning after sometime.....prodded either by chiding adults or encouraging others..or by its own thirst for fullness..

Logos, slogan, signature words ,signing tunes etc are the introductions, ,opening entrances, initial curtains...they are the stepping stones.....the titles, the prefaces..they are not the substance itself.


I admire your yearning to learn...


remembering the malayalam kids poem -cum- gunapaatam"

Paditham mathiyaakkeedaam Praanan meni vidunna naal.."

" படித்தம் மதியாக்கீடாம் பிராணன் மேனி விடுனந் நாள் "

We can stop learning when the life separates from us


Greetings.
 
Greetings to all,

I just went through few pages of this thread, this is exactly how we differentiate ourselves with other castes. A Neat exhibition (in both senses).
 
Even pretense is a starting point. It is a trigger for full search and find. ...



How many people who shout looking at sky know the meaning of the revolutionary word" Inquilab Zindabad" daily heard in Kerala,West Bengal etc.
How many people know in which language it is? Or for that matter the word commonly used by communists to denote their " class enemies" the bourgeois" ? The followers strongly believe the leader,and repeat what is yelled by him. It is just that. May be a few in them may venture to learn further.

...Nobody expected it to know the full meaning. A little innocent gesticulation, a similar sounding repetition ....were all that was needed to entertain the adults around, and make the parents feel proud. But the same child would have learnt the meaning after sometime.....prodded either by chiding adults or encouraging others..or by its own thirst for fullness..
Dear Suryakasyapa,

I feel some of your statements are contradictory. While referring to the slogan shouters, who pretend to know what they shout, you say that may be a few of them will try to learn the meaning, whereas you generalise that pretense is also a starting point in the process of gaining knowledge. Once pretense suffices the purpose, people, by and large, are not likely to go in search of more knowledge, as you yourself admit.

The way many of the members here write sanskrit verses from the vedas and other texts (transliterated in pitiably mutilated forms) but wax eloquent when it comes to the superiority of brahmins, their knowledge and so on, makes a mockery of all the tall claims made by many of us, to put it mildly. And this is not the case of an innocent child trying its first few attempts to learn something by rote and reproduce it before an adult audience and so, that comparison of yours will not, IMO, hold good here. Otherwise we will have to admit that we are all doing just childish prattle here.

If we want to boast about our knowledge of the vedas and scriptures or even any minuscule part thereof, as adults we should first try to learn those verses/slokas/mantras correctly, try to write those in Devanagari font or give a correct transliteration - according to some known and generally accepted convention like the kyoto - and then show it off for what it is worth. This, of course, does not apply when only an English translation is used by someone. There is no point in writing slokas/mantras with all sorts of errors and trying to impress as though the writers are highly devoted souls.
 
The problem with your argument is this. When one says that as a person born in to a Brahmin family I need to take 'ownership' of how anyone else is treated in the past, it perpetuates the issue. History is full of deeds by many, that we would consider as cruel today, by today's standards. I do not feel superior to any other human being, period. If some others feel that way, then, please do not include me in that category. Our community, as a whole has changed and is still changing in our attitudes. It surely will change completely over time. So what is the need for me to take ownership of the past, to do what? Apologize?
Nobody is talking here about apologising though such a step at a crucial juncture in the not-so-long past by the TB representatives would have been timely. It seems to me that your statement covers people (TBs) who want to cling on to (you used the word "grasp") their past glory without being held accountable for the past mistakes as well. That exactly is the problem. You say they will change completely over time; time is a great leveller, of course and it has worked now and will work always but what we are trying to see is that we TBs do not lose what little foothold we have now and end up simply as diaspora only.
I can only control what I am today. I have no control over what my ancestors did or did not do. There are many reasons why the TN NBs do not seem to like our community in general. But as I have said, if each one of us live by today's mores, then there would not be any issues. No need to explain the past and apologize for it. Apologizing for the past but not changing the behaviour is worse.
I find that tacitly you agree that there is not going to be any change in behaviour. If so since everyone is living by the mores of the times, there should be no problem at all, as you seem to think. But is this the truth? How many TBs, even in this forum, will admit it?
How one takes to a debate decides whether one goes into a defensive mode; obviously both sides will have to defend their respective standpoints and the one who is weaker in arguments and/or supporting evidence will feel that he is on the defensive. If one cannot debate further on strong supporting grounds, one has to magnanimously concede defeat to the victor, but still in today's debates we don't require the vanquished to become the victor's slave or sishya as is narrated in our religious history. If you feel that the weaker party in a debate has to be given some sort of psychological help s Noneo that his ego does not get hurt etc., I think such weak-minded people with bloated egos should not enter into a debate first of all.
Vow! On one hand you seem to appreciate today's treatment of the vanquished, but then on the other you show no mercy. Actually, 'debate' is not the correct word to use here. Debate requires knowledge and skill. What we are doing here can be more aptly termed as bantering. No human being is without the emotional part.
I am giving my post as well as yours for ready reference. I would like to know where I show no mercy. Is it that the vanquished should be accepted as having won the debate? or, is it your opinion that people with bloated egos will come, debate and then should be allowed to get away with their views intact? And, far from being a good debater you suddenly try to cast aspersion on my debating ability saying that I don't have knowledge and skill. If you really feel so please say so directly instead of resorting to such indirect tactics.
 
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

Our community, as a whole has changed and is still changing in our attitudes. It surely will change completely over time. So what is the need for me to take ownership of the past, to do what? Apologize?

I am not so sanguine about the changing attitude of "our community". The change they have embraced are all motivated by material and selfish considerations in the most part. For example, nobody thinks twice about transgressing the injunction against skipping nithya or naimithika karma anushtanam for the sake of personal convenience, and nobody thinks twice about setting aside the ban on crossing oceans for the sake of money. These changes in attitude are motivated by personal gain.

True change in attitude, the kind emphasized by Thiruvalluvar's பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லாவுயிர்க்கும், is quite rare. It is slowly taking root among the youngsters, and it is scarring the bezeeses out of the older generation. The attitude shown for icm marriages in this forum and the informal survey of Thiruvanandhapuram participants of Naveena Swayamvaram reported by RVR show this.

I don't think that this is about individual Brahmins feeling guilty or apologizing, even though that wouldn't be a bad thing if each Brahmin does it, in the inner most chamber of their conscience where insincerity and dishonesty cannot enter. It is about fact based understanding of the oppressive way in which the society was organized. The effects of this past oppression is still pervasive, and, further, a lot of the oppression is still being practiced.

So, in this environment, a formal recognition of the suffering of the oppressed and an offering of collective apology for the past wrongs is not an onerous burden on the descendants of the privileged. This is not a novel idea. The US Congress did it for past slavery, unanimously I might add. US government apologized for the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII and was signed by the doyen of US conservatives, President Ronald Reagan. The government even paid reparations totaling $1.6 billion to those who suffered including to some descendants in cases where the ones who suffered were dead.

I agree that an apology offered with insincerely is in some sense worse than the crime itself, might as well not offer it. But I am not talking about apology at all. All I am arguing for is jettisoning this exaggerated grand vision of Brahminism as a gift to humanity, when in fact it was institutionalized oppression and exploitation.

Let Brahmins apologize if they want to, if that will make them feel better. If done sincerely, it will do the Brahmins more good than the Dalits. But, what is important is for the Brahmins to develop a fact based understanding of the past and fashion their present-day outlook based on that understanding. If they do that, I think, at the very least, they will stop whining about the reservation in education system.

As for debates, we can't have a mere disagreement taken as an assault on a person's integrity. We can't have people feeling defensive at the drop of a reasoned and cogent argument. How do you then drive home a point without upsetting the fragile but inflated self-esteem that drives these sensitive tortoises into their defensive but obstinate shells?

What Shri sangom says is, in an earlier time, if the glowing hagiographies are to be believed, at the end of a debate, the one whose arguments prevailed gets recognized as such. The person running out of arguments admits it honestly and even joins the person with stronger arguments.

But here, you get to be called names.

Cheers!
 
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,
My response is below. But let me, before going any further say that my comment about debating is general, not directed against you. Because we are discussing about debates, I brought the point up. Believe me, I do not know you well at all to suddenly accuse you of either lacking knowledge or skill or both. But if I knew you well, then if such an occasion rose to question your skill and knowledge, believe me, I will be direct. Many who know me in this Forum for the past few years know this. Besides, from my viewpoint I lack both in various topics. And it always takes two to tango in a debate. For example, I am not equipped to debate Professor Nara on SV. His knowledge in the subject is so deep, I can only learn from him. Now to my response:
Nobody is talking here about apologising though such a step at a crucial juncture in the not-so-long past by the TB representatives would have been timely. It seems to me that your statement covers people (TBs) who want to cling on to (you used the word "grasp") their past glory without being held accountable for the past mistakes as well. That exactly is the problem. You say they will change completely over time; time is a great leveller, of course and it has worked now and will work always but what we are trying to see is that we TBs do not lose what little foothold we have now and end up simply as diaspora only.
Again, if some take pride in past glory and still think that they are suprior, then as I have said, those will not change. But today's mores stem from a changing world culture and if one does not adapt and change then one will have to face the consequences. But, I do not want to be judged on the basis of my skin color or religion or culture but solely by the force of my character.
I find that tacitly you agree that there is not going to be any change in behaviour. If so since everyone is living by the mores of the times, there should be no problem at all, as you seem to think. But is this the truth? How many TBs, even in this forum, will admit it?
Sir, some change rapidly, others do not need any changes as they are inherently born as humanists and others for whatever reason (security, habit, fear, non reflective etc.) will not change in their lifetimes. Calling them on their behaviour in public is not going to make any difference. But over time, their progenies will change.
I am giving my post as well as yours for ready reference. I would like to know where I show no mercy. Is it that the vanquished should be accepted as having won the debate? or, is it your opinion that people with bloated egos will come, debate and then should be allowed to get away with their views intact? And, far from being a good debater you suddenly try to cast aspersion on my debating ability saying that I don't have knowledge and skill. If you really feel so please say so directly instead of resorting to such indirect tactics.
Regarding showing no mercy, I was referring to your words on asking some folks who do not meet certain conditions not to debate at all. It was done as a tongue in cheek remark. I explained at the start of this response about your last comment above. Hope this explains.
[/COLOR]
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,
My response below:
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

I am not so sanguine about the changing attitude of "our community". The change they have embraced are all motivated by material and selfish considerations in the most part. For example, nobody thinks twice about transgressing the injunction against skipping nithya or naimithika karma anushtanam for the sake of personal convenience, and nobody thinks twice about setting aside the ban on crossing oceans for the sake of money. These changes in attitude are motivated by personal gain.
Perhaps your assumptions on the reasons are correct. And if so, what? I believe that the humanism movement essentially rose out of profit motive as the 'rulers' generally understood that they gained from healthy and happy masses.

True change in attitude, the kind emphasized by Thiruvalluvar's பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லாவுயிர்க்கும், is quite rare. It is slowly taking root among the youngsters, and it is scarring the bezeeses out of the older generation. The attitude shown for icm marriages in this forum and the informal survey of Thiruvanandhapuram participants of Naveena Swayamvaram reported by RVR show this.
Yes, I agree. My only point is that flogging those who do not want to change in public, is not going to result in a change of attitude/behaviour.
I don't think that this is about individual Brahmins feeling guilty or apologizing, even though that wouldn't be a bad thing if each Brahmin does it, in the inner most chamber of their conscience where insincerity and dishonesty cannot enter. It is about fact based understanding of the oppressive way in which the society was organized. The effects of this past oppression is still pervasive, and, further, a lot of the oppression is still being practiced.
But today, it is much much less than how it was in the past. Even in my lifetime I have seen the changes. The anti discrimination laws should be enforced vigorously, on blatant violations of these laws. But the inherent discrimination will take a few generations to go away as the current mores of the society constantly reinforce the values that prevail.

So, in this environment, a formal recognition of the suffering of the oppressed and an offering of collective apology for the past wrongs is not an onerous burden on the descendants of the privileged. This is not a novel idea. The US Congress did it for past slavery, unanimously I might add. US government apologized for the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII and was signed by the doyen of US conservatives, President Ronald Reagan. The government even paid reparations totaling $1.6 billion to those who suffered including to some descendants in cases where the ones who suffered were dead.
As I have said, I do not at all feel responsible / accountable for the actions of my fore fathers. I did not approve and I still do not agree with the actions of those who apologiza and give reparations for past actions. These actions create a victim mentality that perpetuates the issue, in my opinion. As long as the non-discriminatory laws are passed and enforced, to me that is enough.

I agree that an apology offered with insincerely is in some sense worse than the crime itself, might as well not offer it. But I am not talking about apology at all. All I am arguing for is jettisoning this exaggerated grand vision of Brahminism as a gift to humanity, when in fact it was institutionalized oppression and exploitation.
Well, one has to admit that the Brahmin Varna was created to serve others and to be the custodians of the welfare of others in the society. I reject the idea that a minority of people manged to create such a exploitive position in the society, with the ready acceptance of the majority of the populace. This does not make sense to me. Over time, in my opinion, Varna became Jaathi by birth and just because this happened, I do not want to throw away all the good my forefathers also did. Yes, I do not agree with the Jaathi system as devised, but then that does not mean that all my forefathers did all wrong all the time.

Let Brahmins apologize if they want to, if that will make them feel better. If done sincerely, it will do the Brahmins more good than the Dalits. But, what is important is for the Brahmins to develop a fact based understanding of the past and fashion their present-day outlook based on that understanding. If they do that, I think, at the very least, they will stop whining about the reservation in education system.
I do not agree with any reservation/quota system. The way to help the oppressed is to equip them with all the tools necessary to compete with everyone on a level playing field. One can not achieve this by punishing a whole clan for the past supposed sins of all their forefathers in the past, nor by not instituting the habits of success to the past oppressed in the modern world. Again, as we have seen, quota system has not produced the success in uplifting these communities. Because of this system, everyone feels victimized and the cycle continues as more and more people expecting hand outs.

The present Federal Government in India is on a program to uplift the education at the lower levels (elementary and high schools), which is quite belated in my opinion. Instead of creating a quota system, if they had allocated money for education at lower levels (admittedly hard to do for a poor country), by now we would not be witnessing the continued issues with some segments of the society. But instead they willy nilly on emotion created the quota system.

As for debates, we can't have a mere disagreement taken as an assault on a person's integrity. We can't have people feeling defensive at the drop of a reasoned and cogent argument. How do you then drive home a point without upsetting the fragile but inflated self-esteem that drives these sensitive tortoises into their defensive but obstinate shells?
Yes, some folks are too sensitive and get easily hurt. But then, I do not agree that any topic under the Sun could be discussed. For example, I would not want to discuss about the parents and Gurus of a person. There are some sacred areas which should be left alone. But again, this differs from person to person, but I would hope all of us at least know those sacred areas so that we do not intrude.

What Shri sangom says is, in an earlier time, if the glowing hagiographies are to be believed, at the end of a debate, the one whose arguments prevailed gets recognized as such. The person running out of arguments admits it honestly and even joins the person with stronger arguments.

But here, you get to be called names.
Yes, calling names is the last action of those who can not argur further on points and so feel hurt and humiliated.

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS
 
Thanks Sri KRS,

It is very difficult to unite any community and our community is no exception to that rule.

Let us all try to do some thing to the poorer sections of our community. At least on this single point I hope majority of us here will be united . If we do that then it will make lot of difference in the life of such people.

Let us support on educating poorest of our boys. Let us do timely help for medication of our elders. If we do these two, the forum will be noticed by all the members of our community.

I am sure you will agree with me on the above.

All the best

Dear SRI RVR Ji,

Yes, I totally agree with you. I am sure a lot of us are already doing these in a silent way - I know several who do.

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

I know we have fundamentally different world view. That is just fine and makes things interesting I think. Let me state mine and leave it at that. But before I start, this is absolutely an academic exercise. The TN society has gone past Brahminism and those who practice Brahminism, and are unlikely to look back.

The sharing of fruits of labor and specialization was probably quite simple in hunter/gatherer societies. But in an agrarian society, which is what ours was until recently, and still is predominantly, production is a result of labor and land. As long as the land ownership was more or less equitably distributed among those who labor in it, there may not have been any major oppression or exploitation. But that was not so. For whatever reasons, the land owners and those who actually tilled and cultivated have been disparate groups of people.

Even this circumstance may have been alright as long as there was mobility among these disparate groups. But Manu and other Dharmashashthras took care of that. From this point onwards, there was a birth-based permanent labor (Shudra and Dalit) who were forbidden from all things non-manual and non-menial, and there was this birth-based permanent landed groups (Upper varnas) that was able to benefit and amass wealth from the labor of others.

The advantages these upper Varnas were able to enjoy were not limited to just the immediate material benefit, but also the benefits of leisure that came with ownership of wealth. They were able to pursue and excel in intellectual pursuits.

Now, there are two questions that arise, (i) is it just to keep a large proportion of the society permanently under the yoke, for millenia, with a minority enjoying the fruits of their labor, and (ii) is a just society obligated to take corrective action that may cause some minor harm to the privileged groups?

My answer to these two questions is a resounding YES.

Directly or indirectly, the present day upper castes benefited from the oppression perpetrated against the Dalits and other most backward laboring castes. It may be in the form of tangible inheritances, or it may be intangibles such as culture, arts, education, and other intellectual pursuits that were denied to the lowliest of low castes. None of us can say we are not tainted by the advantages that our ancestors extracted through centuries old oppression. If we accept the principle that we deserve to inherit the wealth of our fathers and grandfathers and derive all the benefits of tangible and intangible cultural capital they amassed through the leisure gained from the labor of Dalits, so should we bear the responsibility, if not guilt, of our father's and grandfather's oppression that is at the root of the benefits we enjoy.

The tangible and intangible wealth our ancestors have passed down to us were accumulated through the blood and sweat of those who are now benefiting from the affirmative actions of the government. I read an article in Hindu couple of days ago about a Dalit boy who got admission to medical school, but can't go because the family will loose the income he brings. (For some reason this article is no longer available in the Hindu site.) Can you imagine any upper caste student facing such a situation?

In the final analysis, I think modern liberal democracies, of which India is one I hope, have an obligation to dismantle the age old barriers built by our ancestors and bring the long oppressed to a level playing field. At least in TN, the government is trying to achieve this without shutting out TBs completely. I am yet to come across one single TB who is working as a day laborer or chittal.



But then, I do not agree that any topic under the Sun could be discussed. For example, I would not want to discuss about the parents and Gurus of a person.
Yes, I agree, truly personal matters must be off limits, like the person himself/herself, family members, etc. But guru/acharya, in as much as they are public figures, must not be off limits. I know what you are getting at. Sai Baba is a controversial figure, there are many for whom he is no less than God, and there are others for whom he is no more than a charlatan. But, in as much as he is a public figure he must not be automatically exempt from criticism. People for whom he is God, must either put up valid arguments or endure the criticism. The same must be true for Sankarachariyar, or Azhagiya Singar, or Andavan. One cannot hide behind long standing tradition to exempt them.

Ok, I think I have said enough. Dear Shri KRS, I am sure you will agree with some and disagree with some other points I have presented, and I respect that. I think I will have nothing more of value to add after this, but I do welcome your response, and I will reply if I think I have anything new to add that is of value.

Cheers and best regards ....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Respected Mahanubhavas,
In lighter vein....
As a half filled vessel, (let me admit......), I wrote something without realising that it is turning to a big debate
Let Sage Vyasa come in some form and quote - none else has the authority to quote unless he follows the method of transliteration cited
But, as humble soul, let me say in umility that Ramanuja as we know did cross the borders - Seemollangan (as quoted in Sai Charithra - please excuse using the Sanskrit words as I do not the approved methods) - As a TB settled in North for four decades, I can not avoid using the S
 
Sorry, I could not complete it went off before I finished
I can not escape the Sanskrit/Hindi phrases commonly understood in order to bring the right emphasiYes, some of the actions of our elders, as we have witnessed as chilndren were certainly not in good taste like treatment of Sambhandis and treatment of people of other castes
We have the constitution after fifties. What is not approved in our constitution, is not for our practice. If any practice existed in past, we can not continue
We need a simple but unconventional code for practice for TB in the twenty first century - commonly understood and appreciated and which we can inculcate to our growing children in a manner they will easily accept and put into practice and which will also satisfy the basic tenets of TB's life
As there are more thoughts, we can have certain commonalities - If we do not evolve and get into an amendment mode, may be TB community can not preserve the traditions
Lastly for the highly learned souls who are puritans, I in utter modesty quote a Kural (excuse the transliteration this time)
Ulagatthodu Otta Ozhugal Pala Katrum Kallar Ariviladhar
No offence to the seniors and the mahanubhavas but a point of view - Sir please pardon, no pun intended - If only -'Nirai Kudams' can participate - where will the 'half bakedTH' like me would go - the last quarter of knowlege as quoted is (pardon) "Padham Kala Kramena cha' - perhaps that Padham is the last quarter of one's life - not before
Namaskarams
TR RAMAMURTHY
 
Sir,
There was difficulty as I was typing the paragraphs would not word wrap within the display monitor and go on and I could not check as the line would never take automatically the second line
I meant I did not know the approved transliteration methods like ca (whether it is ka or cha)
respects
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top