• 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.

Enge Brahmanana?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nara

Well-known member
....
A specific observation by the Judges is:

Since secularism, according to the court, contained a guarantee that "the State shall treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without, in any manner, interfering with their individual right to religion, faith and worship."

I am quite amazed, and a little puzzled as well, to read the following statement the Pioneer article attributes to the Supreme Court justices:
“It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone’s belief by way of ‘use of force’, provocation, conversion, incitement, or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other.”
Secularism refers to the state not interfering in religious affairs, or, support or be hostile to any religion. In other words, a secular state must stay out of religious affairs. However, a secular state is also obligated to ensure the right of its citizens to practice any religion they want, change (convert) if they so wish, or even reject religion altogether.

Of course, methods that involve use of force, provocation, and incitement must not be permitted. But, attempts to convert, through persuasion, service, and argument, which must necessarily involve showing that one religion is better than another, however flawed that premise may be, cannot be clubbed with the other methods such as use of force the justices are referring to. To note that Supreme Court justices have done this is quite puzzling indeed.

Acording to this injunction, the time-old sampradAya of propagation of the Vedas by oral tradition, performance of veda yajnas, and conducting pujas in temples by brahmins exclusively, is NOT to be interfered with by the State.
Agreed. But, not all temples had Brahmin priests for ever. In cases where there is dispute, the court has the obligation to be the referee.


Since as Sangom says, such tradition has the tacit approval of other communities, this tradition that is exclusively managed by brahmins, IMO, SHOULD NOT be delegated to other communities, whatever yogyatAMsham any individual therein might obtain.
How was the tacit approval established? How many in the other "communities" gave this tacit approval willingly? Did they ever have a voice in this matter, or was it decided by the Brahminical establishment? Finally, what if the tacit approval is withdrawn, say through a referendum?

This is NOT to say that the other communities should not learn or study the Vedas; only that they cannot chant and perform Vedic rituals, which are in the exclusive realm of the brahmins.
One must appreciate Saidevo's honesty here. This is indeed a core principle of Brahminism. This is why the days of Brahminism are numbered. It is difficult to say how it will perish, but perish it will.

If Brahmins see this writing on the wall, they can transition into a system that retains all aspects of their religion except the Varna/Jati system, but that requires some strong and enlightened leadership. Give up on MDS, or Brahminism is a goner!

Cheers!
 

Vivek_V

New member
@ Sow. Happyhindu

"Am opposed to 2 things in hinduism:
1) Birth-based labour laws propagated in the guise of "shastras".

2) Corruption (including obfuscation) in the name of religion."

Please tell me which shastras speak of these? If you are consider any corruption from people as "hinduism", its your mistake. There are clear texts which make it specific that the job in society is not birth-based. Because it changed, doesn't leave to you throw it like a sack of 50 percent worms with rice - which is an amusingly ignorant analogy Nara gave.

Regards,
Vivek.
 

Vivek_V

New member
@ Sri Nara - Why do you exclude Manisha Panchakam or vednata from "Brahminism"?

"When people of Brahmin birth fight for progressive causes, they are making a powerful statement against Brahminism."

haha, so if its a righteous struggle even by brahmins it ceases to be "Brahminism" right? Tell me other major NB upper castes who opposed caste system? Those of the ruling class? The fact is that brahmins have done a deal because they took inspiration from their culture - not because they opposed it.

"The statue of VI in Madurai represents this fight against one of the core principles of Brahminism, it does not represent that VI was a Brahmin. The "true" Brahmins of the day were quite upset with Vaidyanatha Iyer's diatribe too, I know this from his own grandson who is a good friend of mine."

And who decides who is a true brahmin? You will choose to call all evil brahmins as true brahmins, and all those who oppose casteism as "fighting against brahminism". But you can't own up to facts of the vedanta, upanishads which are the actual CORE of brahmin philosophy, even above texts like the Manu Smriti - which you continue on about.

"I think Varna/Jati system is an albatross around the Brahmin neck. I think they should get rid of this albatross for their own good."

The varna systems origins were similar to jobs in society - which is clear in the way they were used. Brahmins wouldn't have written or propagated texts speaking against caste ill-treatment if it wasn't relevant to their philosophy. As for stratas in society - it will always exist in some way. What matters is how we treat people and give them opportunities.

"Open up Upanayanam to anyone interested"

And that is exactly how it was in the past - wearing the upanayanam means they learnt a trait of character and discipline and were considered "born again" (Dwijas or twice-born). That is exactly why Subramaniam Bharatiyar, without abandoning his identity as "brahmin", did the upanayanam to one fellow.

"Reject MDS unequivocally, say it is not valid for Kali Yuga or something."

And what have I been saying in this community since I came? The idea isn't new - only that you think its unBrahmin-like to fight caste discrimination. But, I from the Manisha Panchakam and the very philosophy of vedanta can say that fighting against social ill-treatment is actually related to the brahmin culture. The fact that it has been forgotten is a dark pit we have slipped into. Perhaps why its called "Kal Yug".

The idea is thus essential in even vedanta which is clearly spoken about in text like Manisha Panchakam which you choose to ignore when you go on about what defines "Brahminism" from your hatred for brahmins (which you lie and deny) and your bias.

"I am saying all this not because I hate Brahmins -- how can I hate Brahmins when most of people close to me are Brahmins? Once you are an ex-Brahmin it will feel good, real good"

What have you even read about the tradition? You haven't. You choosing to be an "ex-brahmin" doesn't stop DK from saying that they have to exile you for being of brahmin lineage. You chose to lose that identity to yourself, but to society? You can't! Firstly, you don't clearly know anything about it. You are unproud to be a brahmin because you haven't really understood the depth of the matter or the nature of discourse.

" Stop having this B and NB feeling, that is destructive to your own humanness."

The fact you are unable to understand is that cultures (distinguished as different) can very well exist together. You don't need to name everyone be idenitical to have humanness. The concept that is relevant here is also closely connected to vedanta - to see Brahman in everyone.

What according to you is "this B and NB feeling"? Identities exist, you can co-exist gladly in diversity too.

"Of course, methods that involve use of force, provocation, and incitement must not be permitted. But, attempts to convert, through persuasion, service, and argument, which must necessarily involve showing that one religion is better than another, however flawed that premise may be, cannot be clubbed with the other methods such as use of force the justices are referring to. To note that Supreme Court justices have done this is quite puzzling indeed."

I don't consider proselytization, those who do understand nothing. Conversion, when its done by making people accept ideas is a fair game.

"One must appreciate Saidevo's honesty here. This is indeed a core principle of Brahminism. This is why the days of Brahminism are numbered. It is difficult to say how it will perish, but perish it will."

haha..For someone who doesn't bother to read: Caste ill-treatment should perish, its not a brahmin philosophy - its an evil shade of our society. Sorry to disappoint you Mr. ex-brahmin.

Regards,
Vivek.
 

Vivek_V

New member
@ Sri Sangomji

" Firstly, what, in your view, are the "brahmin legacies" which deserve such transmission, and whether, it will be practically feasible - in this day and age - to separate the "caste-by-birth credo" from whatever we intend to transmit. "

But who decides this "whatever we intend to transmit"? The point is in the vast "brahmin legacies" there is a mix of many ideas and trends. The only way out is to debate, discourse and if necessary form a separate sub-classifications of brahmins based on the idea different. Personally, what I see is the earliest, the most reveared and philosophical scriptures speak only against caste ill-treatment (or ill-treatment of any kind) - it speaks that way against all negativity too - arrogance, jealousy, hatred. And this is the core IMO, not what Nara would like to believe.

Now the question relevant to a required revolution is: What will a casteist bigot brahmin head who believes in ill-treating of lower caste do when pointed to the Manisha Panchakam or the very essence of vedanta? Or the story of Uttanga? These stories/concepts I believe have been preserved and propagated to fight casteism - which is something Nara is not willing to acknowledge. Nara for instance, can never come to put vedanta, or MP under "Brahminism" when the very authorship of the text (the MP) makes it highly valid - more so than a comment of present day "Swamis"
or something like Manu Smriti.

What is Shankaracharya of today to me? Just another man chosen to represent (not own) our community. His ideas still become questionable - because if we don't do that we are chosing not to accept the actual core of our philosophy composed in various literatures.
Further, let us see the legacy of any culture by try to gather facts for ourselves, rather than believing that a certain head owns so and so culture and everything he does becomes it. In short: Let us not let someone hijack our identity. This makes us lose track of where and how it started, and also gives opportunity for people like Nara to attack us for an opinion we don't hold.

Regards,
Vivek
 
OP
OP
Haridasa Siva

Haridasa Siva

New member
“Inge Brahmanan”!

My statement, that Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam is a Brahmin by what he is, is interpreted as hypocrisy. It is alleged that I have insulted both Dr.Kalam and The Muslim religion in which he is born. Let me reiterate my position.

1. I am proud to have been born to Brahmin parents
2. I am happy to (even blindly) follow the brahminical customs and practices
3. I would not smoke, drink (alcohol) or eat non-vegetarian food
4. I married a girl born to Brahmin parents and I would look only for a Brahmin alliance for my children
5. While I am proud of the Brahmin culture, I don’t feel superior to other castes
6. I at the same time respect every other caste and religion
7. I do my best to help all the people (irrespective of their caste/religion) as far as possible
8. I do not have problem eating in a non-vegetarian restaurant or with people eating non-veg food sitting besides me though I would try to avoid both such situations.
9. Since I am living in the modern era, I would continue to work and earn money. But I would ensure that every cent comes in a legitimate and moral way. I would do (I am already doing) a good amount of charity work.
10. I believe in God and would do my prayers every day.

My traits listed above are my definition of a Brahmin. Dr.Kalam shares many of the above views and that is why I said he fits into the definition of a Brahmin. It was not to say that only a brahmin is a disciplinarian or to say that Muslims can not have good qualities. I respect Dr.Kalam for what he is. I can not even think of insulting him.
 

Raji Ram

Gold Member
Gold Member
Hi Siva!

You fit in the category of அந்தணன் according to திருவள்ளுவர் ...

In addition you are born to Brahmin parents, follow Brahmin customs and got married to Brahmin girl!

It is too early to assure the alliance for your children, right now! (Not to scare you, anyway!)

Continue to be your good self and help the world!

Best wishes,
Raji Ram :peace:
 

sravna

Well-known member
I think in spite of all the hue and cry raised by many about brahmins's feeling of superiority, I would say that such a a feeling is not at all misplaced. If you try to understand why it is so, you would definitely realize it is for their possession of finer qualities. In a way it is necessary to be proud of one's nobler aspects if you want to sustain and enhance those qualities. Though even that should eventually is to be avoided. It is a totally different case if you are proud of your physical appearance, financial assets or other materialist aspects which can only take you downhill.

The fact that caste system became ill famous was because of the less enlightened ones assuming the superiority. But the basis on which the superiority stems is the least prone to give rise to permanent misuse. The difference among castes was made more at the spiritual level, so even if the system deviates from its original intent it can correct its course and be on track since those at the top of that echelon are likely to respond favorably to appeals to righteousness. To all the brahmins who view the caste system unfavorably, I would like to say that it is because the the above reason , we find so many brahmins themselves coming against it.

I too understand the pitfalls of varna by birth but the focus and efforts of the well meaning brahmins against caste system should be constructive and be in making it in sync with present day setting rather than in trying to denigrate it it outright.

Also note I am trying to paint the other castes in lesser light but it is undeniable that their focus is not spiritual but on a different aspect of ability than spiritual.
 

Raghy

Well-known member
Sri.Haridasa Siva Sir, Greetings.

My traits listed above are my definition of a Brahmin.


Sir, with due respect to your feelings, I request you to consider the quoted portion, please. You did not plan to be born as a child to a Brahmin parents; you happen to have born there. It could have been different.

Following Brahminical customs, not smoking, not consuming alcohol, not consuming non-vegetarian food etc are your personal choices. If only such qualities define 'a brahmin', it is very sad indeed. I shall explain why...just because a person follow all those qualities, do that person automatically become a good person? The answer is 'No'. I know gems of persons who eat beef on daily basis, drink (alcohol) on daily basis.

Points #5, #6, #7 are very nice. They would actually make you a very nice person. I respect you for those points.

The part that mentions charity work in #9 is nice. #10 is your personal choice. It's sweet.

Point #8 is irrelevant.

Sir, with due respect to your opinion, the above points alone do not make anyone a brahmanan. Here I am talking about 'brahmanan' explained in the varna descriptions. Such things are history now. What I have written here is acadamic only.

Cheers!



 

ShivKC

Active member
I am quite amazed, and a little puzzled as well, to read the following statement the Pioneer article attributes to the Supreme Court justices:
“It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone’s belief by way of ‘use of force’, provocation, conversion, incitement, or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other.”
Secularism refers to the state not interfering in religious affairs, or, support or be hostile to any religion. In other words, a secular state must stay out of religious affairs. However, a secular state is also obligated to ensure the right of its citizens to practice any religion they want, change (convert) if they so wish, or even reject religion altogether.

Of course, methods that involve use of force, provocation, and incitement must not be permitted. But, attempts to convert, through persuasion, service, and argument, which must necessarily involve showing that one religion is better than another, however flawed that premise may be, cannot be clubbed with the other methods such as use of force the justices are referring to. To note that Supreme Court justices have done this is quite puzzling indeed.

Supreme court of India is quite funny, and is run by Sonia Maino and her religionists lobby gang. Yesterday, that mafia of lobby, got changed the above verdict lines, and S.C issued fresh order. such is the plight of our S.C

SC changes reason for awarding life term to Dara for Staines murder - The Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court bowed to the hurt voiced by the Christian community ... the court's reason why it was not awarding death penalty to Dara Singh. ...
Times of India
 

sangom

Well-known member
Supreme court of India is quite funny, and is run by Sonia Maino and her religionists lobby gang. Yesterday, that mafia of lobby, got changed the above verdict lines, and S.C issued fresh order. such is the plight of our S.C

SC changes reason for awarding life term to Dara for Staines murder - The Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court bowed to the hurt voiced by the Christian community ... the court's reason why it was not awarding death penalty to Dara Singh. ...
Times of India

A very sad day for hindus and Indian judicial reputation:sad:
 

sangom

Well-known member
" Firstly, what, in your view, are the "brahmin legacies" which deserve such transmission, and whether, it will be practically feasible - in this day and age - to separate the "caste-by-birth credo" from whatever we intend to transmit. "

But who decides this "whatever we intend to transmit"? The point is in the vast "brahmin legacies" there is a mix of many ideas and trends. The only way out is to debate, discourse and if necessary form a separate sub-classifications of brahmins based on the idea different. Personally, what I see is the earliest, the most reveared and philosophical scriptures speak only against caste ill-treatment (or ill-treatment of any kind) - it speaks that way against all negativity too - arrogance, jealousy, hatred. And this is the core IMO, not what Nara would like to believe.


Shri Vivek,

I asked Swami to give his views on which are the legacies as a starting point. But what you want to convey by " if necessary form a separate sub-classifications of brahmins based on the idea different”is not clear to me. Kindly elucidate.

I would also request you to tell clearly which are those “earliest, the most reveared (sic) and philosophical scriptures” which speak “only against caste ill-treatment (or ill-treatment of any kind)” ; you have stopped short of clearly stating that the ill-treatment which these texts speak against are about ill-treatment to the lower castes, particularly the śūdras and pacamas – so it will be appropriate if you give relevant extracts of those texts with full details.

Now the question relevant to a required revolution is: What will a casteist bigot brahmin head who believes in ill-treating of lower caste do when pointed to the Manisha Panchakam or the very essence of vedanta? Or the story of Uttanga? These stories/concepts I believe have been preserved and propagated to fight casteism - which is something Nara is not willing to acknowledge. Nara for instance, can never come to put vedanta, or MP under "Brahminism" when the very authorship of the text (the MP) makes it highly valid - more so than a comment of present day "Swamis" or something like Manu Smriti.

I cannot speak for Shri Nara’s views on the points raised above. But as you have addressed this post to me, I will give my views.

What exactly the head of any mahaṃ will do – when the manīāpacakam is pointed out to him - is not for me to say, but it is the very same ādiśakara who established these mahaṃs and is supposed to have given them the guidelines for their working and objectives. Hence, if, till today these mahaṃs have been toeing the caste-by-birth line, does it not itself indicate – even if not directly – that neither ādiśakara nor his hagiographers intended this manīāpacakam incident as nothing more to show that Lord Siva himself attested the advaita philosophy? I understand that ādiśakara never went beyond the vedic injunctions of caste – whether we take it as “varna” system or ‘caste-by-birth’system – and in his brahmasūtrabhāṣya held that only brahmins who are authorized to read and chant vedas, can attain the self-realization propounded by him in advaita. I will be only too glad if you give concrete evidence to disprove this.

Secondly, the mahaṃs and our scholars, pundits and others who are held as authorities for interpreting and explaining our religion and scriptures, do not seem (to me at least) to reckon the manīāpacakam as something greater than the smritis. It is only your pov which says “manīāpacakam is here, and this overrules all other instructions on the caste issue”; as I said above, even ādiśakara did not say so.

What is Shankaracharya of today to me? Just another man chosen to represent (not own) our community. His ideas still become questionable - because if we don't do that we are chosing not to accept the actual core of our philosophy composed in various literatures.

The portion in blue is confusing; do you mean to say the śaṃkarācārya does not represent your community or his own community itself?
I find that you are mixing philosophy and religion in a very facile manner. We have six of them accepted by mainstream Hinduism. These rarely address day-to-day living, social rules and etiquettes, etc. So, how is it possible to derive the social content in each of the ṣaḍdarśanas? Kindly illustrate by giving the social set-up envisaged in, say, sāṃkhya philosophy.

Further, let us see the legacy of any culture by try to gather facts for ourselves, rather than believing that a certain head owns so and so culture and everything he does becomes it. In short: Let us not let someone hijack our identity. This makes us lose track of where and how it started, and also gives opportunity for people like Nara to attack us for an opinion we don't hold.


The whole thing is a bit confusing to me. But I believe you want to say, “let us not go by what the mahaṃs and their heads say and thus “highjack” our religion. Because we did so in the past, we now don’t know where and how this caste system started, and it also gives “opportunity for people like Nara to attack us for an opinion we don't hold”.

Now, to say “let us not go by what the mahaṃs and their heads say”
(about our religion, the caste-by-birth rule, etc.) will require that you hold a position in our religious firmament which can outshine all those mahaṃ-heads; or, you should have a dedicated following in regard to your line of thinking on these matters, so that you can at least change the outlook of some people, like what Shri Basava did.

It is true that we don’t know when and where the caste-by-birth norm originated. But it is, and has been, the rule for centuries if not more than a thousand years. So, what difference does it make whether we know about its origin or not? The opinion of caste-by-birth is probably not held by you, but the vast majority of TBs do hold it.
 

sangom

Well-known member
“Inge Brahmanan”!

My statement, that Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam is a Brahmin by what he is, is interpreted as hypocrisy. It is alleged that I have insulted both Dr.Kalam and The Muslim religion in which he is born. Let me reiterate my position.

1. I am proud to have been born to Brahmin parents
2. I am happy to (even blindly) follow the brahminical customs and practices
3. I would not smoke, drink (alcohol) or eat non-vegetarian food
4. I married a girl born to Brahmin parents and I would look only for a Brahmin alliance for my children
5. While I am proud of the Brahmin culture, I don’t feel superior to other castes
6. I at the same time respect every other caste and religion
7. I do my best to help all the people (irrespective of their caste/religion) as far as possible
8. I do not have problem eating in a non-vegetarian restaurant or with people eating non-veg food sitting besides me though I would try to avoid both such situations.
9. Since I am living in the modern era, I would continue to work and earn money. But I would ensure that every cent comes in a legitimate and moral way. I would do (I am already doing) a good amount of charity work.
10. I believe in God and would do my prayers every day.

My traits listed above are my definition of a Brahmin. Dr.Kalam shares many of the above views and that is why I said he fits into the definition of a Brahmin. It was not to say that only a brahmin is a disciplinarian or to say that Muslims can not have good qualities. I respect Dr.Kalam for what he is. I can not even think of insulting him.

1. I was born to brahmin parents, but I am not in anyway proud or ashamed about it. It was just an accident, I believe.

2. I was blindly following some (not all) the duties enjoined upon brahmins by our scriptures, but started getting doubts about them. Then I started reading, and also listening to lectures given by our pundits. The more I did both of these, the more grew my doubts about the efficacy, integrity and usefulness itself of religion to us.

3. I don't smoke (now for the past 15 years or so), don't drink and don't take NV food, though, I will not mind NV if hunger forces me to eat that and no vegetarian food is available.

4. I married a girl born to brahmin parents. But I do not like to impose any rule/s in the case of my children's alliance - only one son is yet to be married.

5. I don't feel there is anything to be particularly proud of the "brahmin culture" (I am not sure what Shri Siva intends by this.) I am habituated to certain ways of living such as food, language, festivals, dress, etc. and at this age it is somewhat difficult for me to change these easily. But all the same, I am aware that in matters of festivals, dress and even language (the English content) - except food, because I married my uncle's daughter - there have been changes during my lifetime itself.

6. I don't consider caste or religion; I go by the persons. As regards religions I consider that all of them have pluses and minuses, all are of the same kind.

7. I try to help others in need and am not going by caste/religion.

8. I feel the smell of some NV foods do not go with relishing vegetarian food. So, I would prefer to eat in a vegetarian restaurant, if possible. (Of course, nowadays I don't eat out at all, so the topic has only theoretical value.)

9. I would have had to earn my living by doing some service-type of job, given that self-employment was not feasible for me when I entered the job market. I did not have - fortunately - any chance of accepting bribe throughout my working life. But had I been posted to some department where bribes were possible, honestly I do not know what I would have done.

But I am aware that this service-type job disqualifies my claim to be a brahmin as per our Dharmasastras; on this ground my father also gets disqualified. My paternal grandfather was a sanskrit teacher and probably qualifies to claim of brahminhood but my maternal grandfather was a vaideekan and Munsiff court functionary and hence, IMO, gets disqualified.

10. I do believe in a super power - which manifests as our life - but I feel that more than prayers or religiousness it is our own conduct which shapes our life.

I do not know much about Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalaam, but he is a great scientist and of good reputation. I respect him as such.
 

saidevo

Well-known member
vaNakkam kunjuppu.

Glad to see you back here.

again, if i understand you correctly, you are ok with other castes learning the vedas, but should not 'chant and perform Vedic rituals, which are in the exclusive realm of the brahmins'.

i am trying to view this statement from the viewpoint of 'other' castes and dalits separately.

not sure if the other castes would care, unless there was some monetary benefit or admin power involved. a good example might be the chettiars, who have no problem building new temples, and let the brahmins do the priestly functions.

There is one more point: Sanskrit. Brahmins who choose to chant the Vedas are necessarily well-versed in Sanskrit as against most other people--brahmins and non-brahmins--who choose to just learn and study the Vedas for academic and historical interests. There might be exceptions, but I am yet to see a non-brahmin who is well versed and interested in Sanskrit to the extent a brahmin Veda Pandit is, while it is a common sight that there are so many brahmins and non-brahmins who are not even rudimentarily familiar nor are interested to learn Sanskrit.

one minor point, that you might not have considered - how to enforce this practice of preventing other castes from publicly performing rituals if they so wish? i am not sure if any policeforce in india will step in to stop a yagna performed by a mudaliar or chettiar, if he or she, so wishes. what do you say?

Learning to chant the Vedas, even by brahmins, is done by institutional sponsorship or by studying under an appropriate guru, rather than by personal enterprise. The main reason for restricting only competetent brahmins to veda pArAyaNam is their proficiency in (Vedic) Sanskrit and the ability to keep alive the oral tradition by willing to undergo its rigours (such as the gaNapATha), so that pATha-bhedas are eliminated. There are so many non-brahmin Hindu religious institutions, and yet they don't undertake any sponsorship of teaching Veda chanting to non-brahmins after making them versed in Sanskrit, why? I think it is out of deference to the oral tradition of the Vedas and the faith that brahmins are more suitable towards its rigours.

However,--and this is a big however,--even if the non-brahmins are convinced, one cannot prevent the mlechchas from undertaking such efforts in offensively ridiculous ways, as this video clip demonstrates:
YouTube - Vedic Chant Group Santa Fe at the Shiva Mandir

Sangom called the SC rewriting its judgment "very sad day for hindus". I would say that the mlechcha enterprise with scant regard for the tradition, are indicative of even sadder days for Hindus, perhaps the onset of a Kali Yuga prophecy.

As regards your other observations, kindly note, that I have no objections to non-brahmins doing pujas in temples, with Sanskrit archanas, if the Agamic and Vedic traidition of the temple is not against it.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Haridasa Siva

Haridasa Siva

New member
Sangom sir,

Ref. Post no.174. You seem to be largely in agreement with me. I do not intend to go deep into the rituals exactly for the reason you have given in point 2 of your post. I just believe in our ancestors. As regards your addition in point no.9, I think posts in the thread, "Can brahmins be wealthy?" gives the answers. We don't have to get disqualified as a brahmin because of our jobs. We are brahmins by birth, brahmins by (good) thoughts, deeds and words.

Thank you, RR for your compliments. I would sure continue to be good.

Raghy sir, (ref. post 168): I agree with your views. My way of life may not make me a brahmin according to varnasirama dharma. But I AM a Brahmin in my own definition. I do not want to waste my time trying to analyze the "rule book". I play my "natural game" - "Straight from the Gut", to borrow the phrase from Jack Welch.
 
Last edited:
K

kkumar29

Guest
I am surprised at the number of definitions for the word brahmin. Yet every one joined the forum which was titled Tamilbrahmins.com. I suppose every one wanted to find other people who held similar views to their own. In my case I was curious to find out what this was all about as I have been away from it all for the last three decades. I has been interesting so far.

K. Kumar.
 

Nara

Well-known member
..... S.C issued fresh order. such is the plight of our S.C.
Vow, this is amazing, so fickle are the wise men occupying the highest court of the land! The U.S. supreme court can also be quite political, couple of examples: Bush V. Gore election case and the decision to give personhood status and rights to corporations called the Citizens United case. You know, if Citizens United is the law of the land in India, Anil Ambani can give even Rs. 100 crores or more, no limit, to Sonia Gandhi or Advani for their election campaign and that would be perfectly legal.

So, for S.C. to be wrong, hopefully occasionally, is not unexpected, but to reverse itself so quickly under political pressure is bad indeed. Their first mistake was the dubious and quite silly theory that secularism means conversions are not allowed. Their second mistake is to succumb to protest. The have betrayed an utter lack of foresight and an utter lack of conviction. Sad state of affairs indeed.


This is with reference to post no.169 by ShivKC indicating SC rewriting its judgment. Ironically, SC has already given a categorical judgment against conversion here:
It seems the S.C. in this verdict is trying to say there is not a fundamental right for one person to try to convert another person. This may be so, but two points to bear in mind, (i) there could be safeguards placed to prevent malfeasance, but trying to convert another person per se must not be made be illegal in a liberal democracy, and (ii) what religion a given individual wishes to follow, or not follow any religion at all, cannot be anything but a fundamental right. It is nothing short of tyranny to deny this.

Cheers!
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
The main reason for restricting only competetent brahmins to veda pArAyaNam is their proficiency in (Vedic) Sanskrit and the ability to keep alive the oral tradition by willing to undergo the its rigours (such as the gaNapATha), so that pATha-bhedas are eliminated. There are so many non-brahmin Hindu religious institutions, and yet they don't undertake any sponsorship of teaching Veda chanting to non-brahmins after making them versed in Sanskrit, why? I think it is out of deference to the oral tradition of the Vedas and the faith that brahmins are more suitable towards its rigours.
Shri Saidevo,

I just now checked with someone who said that university guidelines in India are subject to the provisions of statutes, and hence admission has to be open to people irrespective of caste.

Am told that students who study in institutions, such as those affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University also include NBs.

In the classes on veda and vedanga, they are taught swaras, methods of chanting as per the chhandas.

There are also traditional Vedapatshalas in other states which allow NB students to join in.

Anyone very well trained will know to eliminate pata bhedas.

This link may be helpful in the dicussions on who is a brahmin: http://gosai.com/writings/the-ontological-position-of-the-vaishnava-over-the-brahmana

Am of belief that [emphasis in blue is mine] -
1) everyone is born a shudra,
2) following samskaras can make anyone a dvija
3) the study of vedas can make anyone a vipra
4) anyone can attain brahmajnanam

janmana jayate sudrah
samskarad bhaved dvijah
veda-pathad bhaved vipro
brahma janatiti brahmanah


I do not know if a child can inherit brahmajnanam by birth, but if there are such children / people, then i feel Sri Nammazwar will also fit the bill.

To me, any child can be taught Vedas if the child
1) shows inclination and interest, and
2) has ability
3) is willing to and is able to live the presribed lifestyle.

Regards.
 
Last edited:

Nara

Well-known member
.....

I do not know if a child can inherit brahmajnanam by birth, but if there are such children / people, then i feel Sri Nammazwar will also fit the bill. .
Happy, you know Nammazhvar is the ultimate Acharya for all SVs, Bs and NBs. Not one single SV acharya lineage can trace itself to Sriman Narayana by exempting Swami Nammazvar.

Yet, somehow, SVs manage to hang on to MDS, and proclaim the supremacy of Brahmin birth. It just does not make any sense at all. All I can say is SVs had a good idea, but the Brahmin SVs made sure it got derailed.

In any case, I reject the very idea that Brahminhood is characterized by all the sublime qualities. This kind of mindset is at the root of all the ills visited upon Brahmins. Brahminhood is nothing more than a concept that allows a certain group of people to claim superiority over others and live on the labor of others.

Yes, there are many good folks who were born as Brahmins. But, there are many more good folks who are born as NBs also. If Abdul Kalam can be treated as a B for the qualities he exhibited, why can't he be considered a Chettiyar, or a Mudaliyar, or a Paraiyar, or a Christian, or a Muhamadamman for the same reason? Being good has nothing to do with whether one is born a Brahmin or be a brahmin in spite of birth. To say Brahminhood is something that is characterized by what is good is self-serving and utterly false.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Follow Tamil Brahmins on Social Media

Latest posts

Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks