Enge Brahmanana?

[Haridasa Siva]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

Enge Brahmanan?

The title might suggest that I am referring to the book by Mr.Cho. But I am not. I am rather raising this question to ask ouselves. I want each brahmin (atleast the members of TamilBrahmins.com) to have self introspection with the following questions:

1. Do I feel proud to be a brahmin. If so, by what?
2. What does it mean to be a brahmin?
3. Have I made an attempt to know and understand the Brahmin culture?
4. Do I understand my duties as a brahmin?
5. Do I value our traditions?
6. What is my views on other cultures?


In my opinion, Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam is a brahmin by the true definition of a brahmin though he is a Muslim by birth. On the other hand, many people born as brahmins do not deserve to be called by that name.

Lokha samasta sukhino bavantu.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Haridas Siva,

Greetings. When you say, in your opinion, Dr.Abdul Kalam is brahmin by defenition, you already seem to have a defenition that defines brahmin. Kindly share your defenition, please. Thank you.

Cheers!

 

[sudeshwer]

reg Sri Haridasa Siva's queries I agree with Mr Raghy's counter query. I also wiosh to knowwhere Sri Siva stands to his queries!!

 

[Raghy]

reg Sri Haridasa Siva's queries I agree with Mr Raghy's counter query. I also wiosh to knowwhere Sri Siva stands to his queries!!

Sri.Sudeshwer Sir,

Greetings. Sri.Haridasa Siva's queries, each one can be discussed in detail. In fact, some of the questions were discussed in detailed in this same forum. But, when Sri.Haridasa Siva has already have an opinion, it would be much better to base the discussions on those opinions. That's why I requested Sri.Haridasa Siva to define. (For example, in my opinion, the answer for question #4 is just one word - 'nil'. But that answer may require bit of of an explanation, though).

Cheers!

 

[kahanam]

Ultimately all Brahmins born thus to Brahmin parents are Brahmins. We need not have second thoughts about this. We should nurture our culture and way of living, paying obeisance to the Guru, praying to God and trying to read and understand scriptures. Doing nityakarmas like Sandhyavandhanam, Brahma Yagnam, doing our jobs with a feeling of devotion will help in Siddha Suddhi and encourage happiness for oneself and others.This should slowly lead to higher levels in our evolution as Brahmins!

 

[Raghy]

Ultimately all Brahmins born thus to Brahmin parents are Brahmins. We need not have second thoughts about this. We should nurture our culture and way of living, paying obeisance to the Guru, praying to God and trying to read and understand scriptures. Doing nityakarmas like Sandhyavandhanam, Brahma Yagnam, doing our jobs with a feeling of devotion will help in Siddha Suddhi and encourage happiness for oneself and others.This should slowly lead to higher levels in our evolution as Brahmins!

Sri.Kahanam Sir,

Greetings. Sri.Haridasa Siva seems to think outside the square. In his opinion, Dr. Kalam could be a brahmin, although not born of brahmin parents and not even in Hindu faith. One may argue Dr.Kalam had a lot of interactions with caste brahmins; but there may be others who did not have brahmin parents, but still may fit 'brahmin' defenition. I still await Sri.Haridasa Siva's defenition.

Personally I have a lot questions about 'brahmin culture', 'brahmin heritage' etc.

Cheers!

 

[mraghavan]

From the perspective of Indologists, Brahminism is a religion and a culture, as it is defines one who engages in the practices and precepts of the Brahmanas, the portion of the Vedas which outlines the rituals and beliefs of those choosing this spiritual path.

As in the case of all ancient religions, one used to follow the religion that he/she is born into; hence Brahminism became a birthright.

I personally feel, however, that in this day and age, Brahminism, is a religious choice that is meant only for those who wish to lead this disciplined lifestyle (and I do know some, even here in the USA). For the rest of us, at best we can say we are "lapsed" or "cafeteria" Brahmins, identifying ourselves with this culture only when it is convenient.

 

[sekar79]

All

In Vedas, There are many definitions given for being a brahmin. Today many brahmins forgot to do sandhyavandhanam which is good for ourself and it keeps the world in peace. Lokha samasta sukhino bavandthu. I agree with siva but he should give his definition for being a brahmin

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Well. As I mentioned in my first thread, these questions are meant to be for self-introspection. But when questions/doubts are raised, it is my job to clarify.

My definition of brahmin(ism) is as follows:
1. Good in words, deeds and thoughts ("Tanme Manah Shiva Sankalpa Mastu" from Yajur Veda. May my mind become thinker of right thoughts. (May I understand this Universe correctly.)
2. To have knowledge ("Na He Gyanen Sadrusham Pavitram ih vidyate" from Bhagawad Gita. There is nothing holier than true knowledge and pursuit of it.)
3. Not having vices like smoking, drinking alcohol, immoral activities
4. Being a strict disciplinarian. That is what Raghavan has also highlighted in reply no.7 above
5. To be compassionate to all living beings and to be genuinely interested in their well being
6. And of course to follow the duties prescribed (like nityakarma, sraardham, etc.)

In my opinion Dr.Kalam fits in all the above. Hence he is a brahmin. As I mentioned in another thread, one can not be a brahmin just because there is a thread across one's chest.

I am not sure whether any one (like Sekar in his reply above) is interested in my personal standing in relation to my questions. If that is the question, my answer is "I am trying to be a brahmin". I do sandhya vandanam and I pray God everyday chanting slokams. I help people. I always (try to) speak truth. I respect other cultures. But I have indulged in vices in the past and my mind is still not in my control. I don't think I am that pure. And I do not know vedas and other spiritual texts. But I have realised the need to be a brahmin. Hope I would be a brahmin soon.

Loka samasta sukhino bavantu.

 

[SALEM]

To Haridasa Siva: Very good as par as you Dr Kalam is a Brahmin YES. Only Knowledge make a person as Brahmin. s.r.k.

 

[Raji Ram]

Dear friends,

Cho Ramaswamy has clearly stated that there can not be any brahmin these days, who can live how a brahmin is supposed to live! So, who ever is born to brahmin parents is a brahmin.

According to ThiruvaLLuvar the definition of 'andhaNnan' is different, though a brahmin is usually known as 'andhaNan'.

அந்தணர் என்பவர்...

பிறப்பு எல்லா உயிர்களுக்கும் ஒன்றெனக் கூறினும்,
சிறப்பு கிடைப்பது சில இனங்களுக்கு மட்டுமே!

மனிதரிலும் பிரிவுகளை ஏற்படுத்தி, அதில் ஒன்றை
மனிதரில் மிக உயர்வாக வைக்கின்றார், உலகினர்!

வள்ளுவர், வேறு வழியில் நிர்ணயிக்கிறார், உலகில்
உள்ளவரில் எவரெவர் அந்தணர் என்று, தம் குறளில்!

'அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர்மற் றெவ்வுயிர்க்கும்
செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுக லான்', என உரைக்கிறார்.

அற வழியில் நிற்போரே, எல்லா உயிர்களிடமும்,
அருள் பெருக, அன்பு கொண்டவராய் விளங்குவதால்,

அந்தணர் அவரே என வரையறுத்து, மனிதர்கள்
இந்த வழியால் உயர் பிறவியாகலாம் என்கிறார்!

:angel:

Regards,
Raji Ram

 

[sangom]

Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva - 40 - 28 lays down that brahmin, kshatriya and vaisya are those born to the respective parents.

ब्राह्मण्यां ब्राह्मणाज्जातॊ ब्राह्मणः स्यान्न सम्शयः ।
क्षत्रियायाम् तथैवस्याद् वैश्यायामपि चैव हि ॥

brāhmaṇyāṃ brāhmaṇājjāto brāhmaṇaḥ syānna samśayaḥ |
kṣatriyāyām tathaivasyād vaiśyāyāmapi caiva hi ||

This rule is probably what was practised ever since the time of M. Bh. and what we have inherited. But there are many definitions/descriptions of "brāhmaṇa lakṣaṇa" in different puranas; some of them try to picturise a brāhmaṇa as per the requirements of their avowed aim - like a Saiva, Sakta, Vaishnava, etc., and the external religious symbols and all that; there are a few references of a different type, which I give below:

जात्या कुलॆन वृत्तेन स्वाध्यायेन श्रुतेन च ।
एभियुङ्क्तो हि यस्तिष्ठॆन्नित्यम् स द्विज उच्यते ॥ वराह पुराणम्

jātyā kulena vṛttena svādhyāyena śrutena ca |
ebhiyuṅkto hi yastiṣṭhennityam sa dvija ucyate || varāha purāṇam

Loosely translated, it means, "one, who, born in brāhmaṇa kula, combines, on a permanent basis, his actions (deeds), and learning (study, recitation and perusal) of vedas, and remains so, is called a dwija (brāhmaṇa).

Note :
Here also, birth as a brahmin is stipulated. But it is also clear, from the above, that all those who are born to brahmin parentage cannot be considered as brāhmaṇas. The Dharmasastras denote people who have only their birth of brahmin parentage but not to all the other qualifications of a true brāhmaṇa, by the term "brahmabandhu". Such brahmabandhus are not to be invited as brāhmaṇa for sraaddham even.

Mahabharata, , Book 12: Santi Parva: Mokshadharma Parva has this to say (reproduced from sacred-texts.com):

"There is really no distinction between the different orders. The whole world at first consisted of Brahmanas. Created (equal) by Brahman, men have, in consequence of their acts, become distributed into different orders. They that became fond of indulging in desire and enjoying pleasures, possessed of the attributes of severity and wrath, endued with courage, and unmindful of the duties of piety and worship,--these Brahmanas possessing the attribute of Passion,--became Kshatriyas. Those Brahmanas again who, without attending to the duties laid down for them, became possessed of both the attributes of Goodness and Passion, and took to the professions of cattle-rearing and agriculture, became Vaisyas. Those Brahmanas again that became fond of untruth and injuring other creatures, possessed of cupidity,--engaged in all kinds of acts for a living, and fallen away from purity of behaviour, and thus wedded to the attribute of Darkness, became Sudras. Separated by these occupations, Brahmanas, falling away from their own order, became members of the other three orders. All the four orders, therefore, have always the right to the performance of all pious duties and of sacrifices. Even thus were the four orders at first created equal by Brahman who ordained for all of them (the observances disclosed in) the words of Brahma (in the Vedas). Through cupidity alone, many fell away, and became possessed by ignorance. "SECTION CLXXXVIII
.....
"Bharadwaja said, 'By what acts does one become a Brahmana? By what, a Kshatriya? O best of regenerate ones, by what acts again does one become a Vaisya or a Sudra? Tell me this, O foremost of speakers.'

"Bhrigu said, 'That person is called a Brahmana who has been sanctified by such rites as those called jata and others; who is pure in behaviour; who is engaged in studying the Vedas; who is devoted to the six well-known acts (of ablutions every morning and evening, silent recitation of mantras, pouring libations on the sacrificial fire, worshipping the deities, doing the duties of hospitality to guests, and offering food to the Viswedevas); who is properly observant of all pious acts; who never takes food without having offered it duly to gods and guests; who is filled with reverence for his preceptor; and who is always devoted to vows and truth. He is called a Brahmana in whom are truth, gifts, abstention from injury to others, compassion, shame, benevolence, 1 and penance. He who is engaged in the profession of battle, who studies the Vedas, who makes gifts (to Brahmanas) and takes wealth (from those he protects) is called a Kshatriya. He who earns fame from keep of cattle, who is employed in agriculture and the means of acquiring wealth, who is pure in behaviour and attends to the study of the Vedas, is called a Vaisya. 2 He who takes pleasure in eating every kind of food, who is engaged in doing every kind of work, who is impure in behaviour, who does not study the Vedas, and whose conduct is unclean, is said to be a Sudra. If these characteristics be observable in a Sudra, and if they be not found in a Brahmana, then such a Sudra is no Sudra, and, such a Brahmana is no Brahmana. By every means should cupidity and wrath be restrained. This as also self-restraint, are the highest results of Knowledge. Those two passions (viz., cupidity and wrath), should, with one's whole heart, be resisted. They make their appearance for destroying one's highest good. One should always protect one's prosperity from one's wrath, one's penances from pride; one's knowledge from honour and disgrace; and one's soul from error. That intelligent person, O regenerate one, who does all acts without desire of fruit, whose whole wealth exists for charity, and who performs the daily Homa, is a real Renouncer. 3 One should conduct oneself as a friend to all creatures, abstaining from all acts of injury. Rejecting the acceptance of all gifts, one

p. 35

should, by the aid of one's own intelligence, be a complete master of one's passions. One should live in one's soul where there can be no grief. One would then have no fear here and attain to a fearless region hereafter. One should live always devoted to penances, and with all passions completely restrained; observing the vow of taciturnity, and with soul concentrated on itself; desirous of conquering the unconquered senses, and unattached in the midst of attachments. All things that can be perceived by the senses are called Manifest. All, however, that is Unmanifest, that is beyond the ken of the senses, that can be ascertained only by the subtile senses, should be sought to be known. 1 If there be no faith, one will never succeed in attaining to that subtile sense. Therefore, one should hold oneself in faith. The mind should be united with Prana, and Prana should then be held within Brahma. By dissociating oneself from all attachments, one may obtain absorption into Brahma. There is no need of attending to any other thing. A Brahmana can easily attain to Brahma by the path of Renunciation. The indications of a Brahmana are purity, good behaviour and compassion unto all creatures.'" -- do- SECTION CLXXXIX

I suppose the above will give some idea about how our puranas viewed the issue of "who is a brāhmaṇa".

Note :

In another thread (//www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...-system-weakness-hinduism-102.html#post65068: //www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...-system-weakness-hinduism-101.html#post64996: //www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...e-system-weakness-hinduism-101.html#post64997) I have been accused by Shri Nara, of being hypocritical because I happened to post certain mantras which are part of the śrāddha ceremony, but, not holding a view in accordance with its meaning, (which I thought I was only reproducing for the information of the members; I did not make any statement to the effect that I agree with its import.) questioned Shri Kunjuppu on a point which had relevance to the meaning of the said śrāddha mantra. Hence I would like to make it very clear that whatever I have given above are mere reproduction/s of the respective scriptures and that my reproducing these here (which I feel is for wider dissemination of knowledge and nothing else) should not, in any manner, be construed to indicate that I endorse all or any of the above views; I reserve the right to express, in future, my personal views on the above issue/s which may or may not be in accordance with, and may even be contrary to, the above views from the scriptures.

I am compelled to include such a caveat because of the curious situation referred to above please, which seems to me to be a peculiar characteristic of this forum.

 

[Haridasa Siva]

I am thankful to Sangom for the wonderful clarification. Great. However from the last paragraph of the message, I understand the member is made to feel uncomfortable in this forum. It is unfortunate. We should not get personal. Let us shelve our culture of infighting and promote harmony.

Loka samasta sukhino bavantu.

 

[Nara]

In another thread (//www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...-system-weakness-hinduism-102.html#post65068: //www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...-system-weakness-hinduism-101.html#post64996://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...e-system-weakness-hinduism-101.html#post64997) I have been accused by Shri Nara, of being hypocritical because I happened to post certain mantras which are part of the śrāddha ceremony, but, not holding a view in accordance with its meaning, (which I thought I was only reproducing for the information of the members; I did not make any statement to the effect that I agree with its import.)

Folks, As I have pointed out in the other thread, by reproducing Shri Sangom's own words, it was not a mere presentation of the mantras and their meaning in an academic sense, Shri Sangom added his own editorial comments such as "punctilious" and "ultra-realistic". This by itself was not a problem, at least for me. But, he was the lead supporter of RP who took offense at K's general comments nowhere near odious as the mantras, and, Shri Sangom's own editorial comments.

Since Shri Sangom has brought this matter up again here in this thread and is trying to justify his untenable conduct on the other thread, I am forced to restate the charge that he behaved in a hypocritical way when he went after K.

Thank you....

 

[sangom]

Folks, As I have pointed out in the other thread, by reproducing Shri Sangom's own words, it was not a mere presentation of the mantras and their meaning in an academic sense, Shri Sangom added his own editorial comments such as "punctilious" and "ultra-realistic". This by itself was not a problem, at least for me. But, he was the lead supporter of RP who took offense at K's general comments nowhere near odious as the mantras, and, Shri Sangom's own editorial comments.

Since Shri Sangom has brought this matter up again here in this thread and is trying to justify his untenable conduct on the other thread, I am forced to restate the charge that he behaved in a hypocritical way when he went after K.

Thank you....

Respectable members,

In the first place, do not think that by adding adjectives like "punctilious" or "ultra-realistic" it can be assumed that I endorsed the idea behind the mantra, in the absence of a direct expression to this effect in my writings.

So far I was trying to keep away from the controversy in accordance with the Super-moderator's directions. Here also I was only trying, in my own limited way, to safeguard myself from any future Nara-type attacks since my own views may not be what I reproduce here for the information of general members. I was not aware that, in this forum, if we reproduce something it is tantamount to our supporting all that is said in whatever is so reproduced.

Since here also Shri Nara is pursuing me with his allegation, I now consider that definitely this is not the place for unintelligent people like me. I am extremely sorry for having wasted your time all these few months. Adieu!

 

[sudeshwer]

after going various comments on this subject I feel I get enlightened. Sri Haridasa Siva has aptly mentioned his position. with his permission I venture to repeat the same for me too: I am trying to be a brahmin". I do sandhya vandanam and I pray God everyday chanting slokams. I help people. I always (try to) speak truth. I respect other cultures. But I have indulged in vices in the past and my mind is still not in my control. I don't think I am that pure. And I do not know vedas and other spiritual texts. but I do read But I have realised the need to be a brahmin. As I keep on reading writtings of Adi Sankara and Paracharyal, I realise the importance of being brahmin. My father,my grandfather and great grandfatherand other elders in my family followedthe regid procedureof brahminism. with all inbuilt defects in my I feel I am a proud brahmin. If incorrect I Hope and wish I would be a brahmin soon. I repeat I am enlightened.

 

[Nara]

....So far I was trying to keep away from the controversy in accordance with the Super-moderator's directions. Here also I was only trying, in my own limited way, to safeguard myself from any future Nara-type attacks ...

Since here also Shri Nara is pursuing me with his allegation,

I am trying to keep away from all the topics myself. It is Shri Sangom who, in an indirect way, tried to say the charge of hypocrisy against him is not valid. But for the self-serving "note" he added I wouldn't be bothering anyone here.

I have no problem with Shri Sangom using adjectives like "punctilious" or "ultra-realistic", but going after K after this is, IMO, hypocritical. This is not an attack, it is a charge I am making, with evidence gleaned from his own words. Instead of answering the charge, Shri Sangom is making a personal comment against me with "Nara-type attack", what might that be, Nara-type?

I am not interested in attacking anyone, least of all Shri Sangom. I am not also interested in interrupting any discussion that is going on. Further, I am not interested in any other topic, at least for the moment, except K's departure, and the charge of hypocrisy, which stands, and has not been answered satisfactorily. You will see posts from me only when this topic is broached, otherwise, I shall remain mute, for now.

Thank you ....

 

[samarapungavan]

Dear Shrimathi Raji Ram,

Thiruvalluvar's view is identical to the views od dharma sastras. Please see some of the other Kurals and their parallels in Dharma sastras.


குறள் - 8
அறவாழி அந்தணன் தாள் சேர்ந்தார்க் கல்லால்
பிறவாழி நீந்தல் அரிது

(அறக்கடலான அந்தணன் இறைவன், அவனுடய பாதங்களை அடைபவர்கள்த்தவிர
மற்றவருக்கு பிறவியாகிய பெருங்கடலை கடக்க இயலாது.)
குறள் - 30
அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர்மற்று எவ்வுயிர்க்கும்
செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுகலான்
(அந்தணர்கள் அறத்தின் வழி நடப்பவர்கள். எல்லா உயிர்க்கும் அருள் செய்பவர்கள், அதை விரதமாக
கொண்டவர்கள்.)
குறள் - 134
மறப்பினும் ஒத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கம் குன்றக்கெடும்.

ஒத்து என்பது வேதம் (பரமாசார்யாரின் "தெய்வத்தின் குரல்" காண்க)
பார்ப்பனர்கள் - ப்ராஹ்மணர்கள்
(வேதம் கற்று அதை ஒதுதல்,ஒதுவித்தல் பார்ப்பனர்களுக்கு கடமை, அதை மறந்தாலும்
பரவாயில்லை, ஆனால் தன் பிறப்பொழுக்கம் கெட நடந்தால் குடி பெருமை கெட்டு விடும்.)
குறள் - 413
செவிஉணவின் கேள்வி உடையார் அவி உணவின்
ஆன்றோரொடு ஒப்பர் நிலத்து.
செவிஉணவு - ஸ்ருதி என்கிற வேதம்
அவி உணவு - ஹவிஸ் என்பதன் தமிழாக்கம்
ஆன்றோர் - தேவர்கள்
இங்கே பார்ப்பனர்கள் தேவர்களுக்கு ஒப்பானவர் என்று வள்ளுவர் கூறுகிறார்.
குறள் - 560
ஆபயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நூல் மறப்பர்
காவலன் காவான் எனின்.
அறுதொழிலோர் - ப்ராஹ்மணர்கள்
ப்ராஹ்மணர்களின் ஆறுதொழில்களாவன:
அத்யயனம் - ஒதுதல்
அத்யாபனம் - ஒதுவித்தல்
யஜனம் - வேள்வி செய்தல்
யாஜனம் - வேள்வி செய்வித்தல்
தானம் - ஈதல்
ப்ரதிக்ரஹம் - எற்றல்
மனு ஸ்ம்ருதி:
अद्य्यापनम् अद्ययनम् यजनम् याजनम् तथा । दानम् प्रथिग्रहन्च - एव ब्राह्मणानाम् अकल्पयथ् ॥
ஆகவே வள்ளுவர் வைதீக கோட்பாடுகளையே கூறுகிறார்.
"பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும்" என்பதினால், காட்டப்பட்டது யாதெனில்,
எல்லா மனிதர்களும் பிறக்கும் போது ஸம்ஸ்காரம் இன்றி பிறக்கிறார்கள்.
உபநயன ஸம்ஸ்காரத்தினால் இரு பிறப்பாளர்கள் ஆகிறார்கள்.
ஆகவே உயர் குடி பிறப்போ, செல்வமோ, மற்றும் அனைத்தும், பூர்வ கர்ம வினை
பயனே. ஏனெனில், இறைவன் வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Samarapungavan Sir,

Greetings. When Thiruvalluvar referred to God, He said 'அறவாழி அந்தணன்', as a singular entity.

அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர்மற்று எவ்வுயிர்க்கும்
செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுகலான்

In the above குறள், Valluvar defines 'அந்தணர்' as the persons who are honorable persons, who would not offend anything that lives. The persons who satisfy the above qualification may very well be a part of 'அந்தணர்'. Here, the qualification is not defined by birth or education or profession or gender. (A man may not be one of 'அந்தணர்', where as his wife could be). This person could be an illeterate as in 'நீட்டோலை வாசியான் நின்றான் நெடுமரம்'...still that person could be termed as 'அந்தணர்'. This 'அந்தணர்' have no connection to 'Brahmana' as in a varna.

செவிஉணவின் கேள்வி உடையார் அவி உணவின்
ஆன்றோரொடு ஒப்பர் நிலத்து.
செவிஉணவு - ஸ்ருதி என்கிற வேதம்
அவி உணவு - ஹவிஸ் என்பதன் தமிழாக்கம்
ஆன்றோர் - தேவர்கள்
இங்கே பார்ப்பனர்கள் தேவர்களுக்கு ஒப்பானவர் என்று வள்ளுவர் கூறுகிறார்.

I beg to differ, please. Valluvan did not equate பார்ப்பணன் to Devas. 'செவிஉணவு' can be songs from 'Thiruvasagam' or 'Devaram' or it can be anyother literature that could improve knowledge. Here, valluvan equates all learned persons to Devas (possibly with a sincere hope, that they would do the right thing for the society). (If Valluvan wanted to equate பார்ப்பணர் to Devas, I think, he would have done it quite plainly).

அறுதொழிலோர் - ப்ராஹ்மணர்கள்
ப்ராஹ்மணர்களின் ஆறுதொழில்களாவன:
அத்யயனம் - ஒதுதல்
அத்யாபனம் - ஒதுவித்தல்
யஜனம் - வேள்வி செய்தல்
யாஜனம் - வேள்வி செய்வித்தல்
தானம் - ஈதல்
ப்ரதிக்ரஹம் - எற்றல்

No Sir, அறுதொழிலோர் need not be 'Brahmins' only; anybody could be performing any or all of the six jobs. Yes, Brahmins were required to do that; but, such jobs can be done by others too. For example, an Yagna can be performed by anyone who could afford to do it. He along with his partner/wife becomes 'yajaman'. Although he/she sponsors the Yajna, it is generally known as 'he and she' did the Yajna.

Kindly don't equate Manu Smrithi in anyway to Thirukkural, please.

"பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும்" என்பதினால், காட்டப்பட்டது யாதெனில்,
எல்லா மனிதர்களும் பிறக்கும் போது ஸம்ஸ்காரம் இன்றி பிறக்கிறார்கள்.
உபநயன ஸம்ஸ்காரத்தினால் இரு பிறப்பாளர்கள் ஆகிறார்கள்.
ஆகவே உயர் குடி பிறப்போ, செல்வமோ, மற்றும் அனைத்தும், பூர்வ கர்ம வினை
பயனே. ஏனெனில், இறைவன் வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்.

Sir, Kindly allow me to say that the above quoted portion is ridiculous, please. Valluvan said this in 972 -

பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும் சிறப்பு ஒவ்வா
செய்தொழில் வேற்றுமை யான்.

Everyone is equal by birth; Valluvan hails that as சிறப்பு! (Later on down the track), based on one's profession, changes between them occur. In other words, Valluvan says, all the children are equal. ' செய்தொழில்' can not be taken as 'உபநயன சம்ஸ்காரம்'. Where does Valluvan say 'ஆகவே உயர் குடி பிறப்போ, செல்வமோ, மற்றும் அனைத்தும், பூர்வ கர்ம வினை
பயனே" in that Kural #972, please? Thank you.

Cheers!

 

[Raji Ram]

Thanks a lot to Sri. Raghy Sir for his clarifications. Now please let me record my views too....

திருவள்ளுவர் அந்தணன் என்ற சொல்லை 'மிக உயர்ந்தவர்' என்ற பொருளிலேயே பயன்படுத்துகின்றார்.

இறைவனை 'அறவாழி அந்தணன்' என்பதால் அறியலாம்.

அறவழி தவறாது நடப்பவரே அந்தணர்; உயர்ந்தவர்.

மேலும்,நெய் விட்டு ஆயிரம் வேள்விகளை நடத்துவதைவிட,

மெய் விட்டு ஓருயிர் பிரித்து உண்ணாமையே மேல், என்பதை

'அவிசொரிந் தாயிரம் வேட்டலின் ஒன்றன்
உயிர்செகுத் துண்ணாமை நன்று' என்ற குறளில் வலியுறுத்துகின்றார்.

அற வழிகள் பல கூறி, அதன் வழி நடப்பவரே உயந்தவர்கள் என்று உறுதியாகக் கூறுகின்றார்.

அந்தணன் என்பது பிராமணர் என்பது பின்னர் வழக்கில் வந்திருக்கலாம்!