• 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.
sh.kumar, look at the contradictions between your own statements underlined above . one hand u want no one to question, and another hand u want others point of view also.

there is a difference between blog & forum. Blog is you post on the wall, and every one read it. but in forum, every one discusses,critics, dissects your point. if you dont want some one to question/criticise you, then, taken this eg. tomorrow someone write here, saying, ' All tamil brahmins are cheats', will you just read it and go silently, or question him to prove his point.

note;, being a new member , thought of sharing this info to you. sh.nara is a very learned and esteemed member.

I don't see any contradiction. When I make a post I post either in a forum or on a wall it is my opinion that I am expressing. You are entitled to disagree with my opinion, criticize it and even tear it apart. But it doesn't mean that I will get into a prolonged argument to defend my opinion. I simply asked for Shri Nara's opinion because I find his posts very logical and sometimes very educative.

Now you have assumed that since I am a new member I am naive and I have somehow disrespected Shri Nara by questioning him. You are entitled to your opinion and I will ignore it.

Cheers,
K. Kumar.
 
Being junior or new in a forum does not place one at a lower pedestal; similarly, being a senior member does entitle one to undue privileges.

Valluvam is not an anti-thesis of Brahminism, as it is understood here.

I agree with the observation that this is not a battle field to enable one to score a victory over another. Opinions are for exchange of views; not to establish supremacy over one another. It is a bad attitude and wrong objective.
 
Let us pause and look what
Tagore (a Brahmo) was to say in one of his letters,(1933)

"I do not quite agree when you make the Brahmins responsible for all the evils existing in our society and run them down from Manu's days to ours. ... The Brahmins in the middle ages reflected the times as much others did, and often associated themselves with movements we would not support now not because they diabolically wanted to injure society but simply because they had to represent their own age.
As a matter of truth, they belonged to the aristocracy of intellect, and maintained a purity of ideals and an austerity of habit which have done great benefit to our people for generations"

Regards,
Swami

 
...."I do not quite agree when you make the Brahmins responsible for all the evils existing in our society and run them down from Manu's days to ours. ...
This is the tragedy of great reformers like Tagore and Bharathi, they were fervently opposed to the caste/jati system, but still couldn't go far enough to reject the ideology outright.

Tagore did not mince words when it came to rejecting Brahmins and Brahmin practices. Read this wonderful short story called "The Renunciation" in which he brings out Brahminical conceit and his rejection of it through the lead character of the story.

SwamiTaBra has cited one little passage from Tagore's letters to make a narrow casteist point. But, there is no denying that Tagore opposed Brahmins and the casteism they practiced. I have attached the text of just one letter he wrote to Gandhi in March 1933 emphasizing the need for social reform and breaking of Brahminical control over temple worship. It is instructive to read the whole letter, but let me excerpt just one passage to illustrate the contempt Tagore had for Brahmins -- note the use of the pronoun "they".
"There is a tradition of religion connected with temple worship, [...] (F)from the point of view of the trustees of traditions they are acting according to an inherent sense of property in preserving them as they are, in keeping the enjoyment of idol worship in temples for exclusive groups of people. They not only deny the right of such worship to Christians and Mohammedans but to sections of their own community. Particular temples and deities are their own property and they keep them locked up in an iron chest. In this they are acting according to traditional religion which allows them such freedom, rather enjoins them to act in this manner. A reformer in dealing with such morally wrong traditions cannot adopt coercion and yet as in fighting with other wrong and harmful customs he must exert moral force and constantly seek to rectify them. This fight is necessary."
Revolutionary fervor of Bharathiyar is no less, but is not well known outside Tamil speaking people. Even within Tamils, it is not properly understood. Bharathi expressed his utter contempt for Brahmins. Take a look at the following.
பேராசைக் காரனடா பார்ப்பான் - ஆனால்
பெரியதுரை என்னிலுடல் வேர்ப்பான்.
But he also gave support to the Varna system. Look at this verse from Murasu:
நாலு வகுப்புமிங் கொன்றே; இந்த
நான்கினி லொன்று குறைந்தால்
வேலை தவறிச் சிதைந்தே - செத்து
வீழ்ந்திடும் மானிட சாதி
Thus, even though Tagore and Bharathiyar were fiercely critical of Brahmincal hypocrisy, they could not bring themselves to go that extra mile and reject Brahminism and its hallmark Vrana/Jati system completely, like Basavanna or Ambedkar.

Here it is important to note that Ambedkar's arguments for the annihilation of Varna system and his rebuttal to Ghandhi's feeble response remain unanswered till date.

If great reformers like Tagor and Bharathiyar had joined hands with B.R. Ambedkar and totally rejected Brahminism, India would be a much greater country today.

Cheers!

=====The full text of Tagore's letter to Gandhi======
Dear Mahatmaji,
It is needless to say that I do not at all relish the idea of divinity being enclosed in a brick and mortar temple for the special purpose of exploitation by a particular group of people. I strongly believe that it is possible for simple-hearted people to realise the presence of God in the open air, in a surrounding free from all artificial obstruction. We know a sect in Bengal, illiterate and not dominated by Brahminical tradition who enjoy a perfect freedom of worship profoundly universal in character. It was the prohibition for them to enter temples that has helped them in their purity of realisation.'

The traditional idea of Godhead and conventional forms of worship hardly lay emphasis upon the moral worth of religious practices; their essential value lies in the conformity to custom which creates in the minds of the worshippers an abstract sense of sanctity and sanction. When we argue with them in the name of justice and humanity, it is contemptuously ignored for as I have said the moral appeal of the cause has no meaning for them and you know that there are practices and legends connected with a number of our sectarian creeds and practices which are ignoble and irrational.

There is a tradition of religion connected with temple worship, and though such traditions can be morally wrong and harmful, yet they cannot merely be ignored. There the question comes of changing them of widening their range and character. There can be differences of opinion with regard to the methods to be adopted. From the point of view of the trustees of traditions they are acting according to an inherent sense of property in preserving them as they are, in keeping the enjoyment of idol worship in temples for exclusive groups of people. They not only deny the right of such worship to Christians and Mohammedans but to sections of their own community. Particular temples and deities are their own property and they keep them locked up in an iron chest. In this they are acting according to traditional religion which allows them such freedom, rather enjoins them to act in this manner. A reformer in dealing with such morally wrong traditions cannot adopt coercion and yet as in fighting with other wrong and harmful customs he must exert moral force and constantly seek to rectify them. This fight is necessary. I do not think Tucker makes this point clear.

As to the Santiniketan prayer hall it is open to all peoples of every faith. Just as its doors do not shut out anybody so there is nothing in the simple form of worship which excludes people of different religions. Our religious service could as well take place under the trees, its truth and sacredness would not at all be affected but perhaps enhanced by such a natural environment. Difficulties of climate and season intervene, otherwise I do not think separate buildings are really necessary for prayer and communion with the divine.

I have sent a poem for the Harijan - translating it from one of my recent Bengali writings. I do hope it is one in spirit with the ideal of the Harijan which I read with much pleasure and interest. There can be no more hopeful sign for India than the fact that her repressed humanity is waking up as a result of the great fast.

With loving regards

Yours sincerely Rabindranath Tagore
 
I have found in common Harijans/Dalits the worst victims of caste oppressions, a sort of sub-conscious respect for brahminical practices. Sri Nara, as is his wont, conveniently ignores the final para of the passage of Tagore that I quoted. (the passage I quoted was excerpted from a letter which was a reply to a lady who launched a diatribe on Brahmins similar to what Sri Nara and Happy Hindu are indulging in this forum on brahmins and brahminism).

While media was having a field day when Jayendra Saraswathi was arrested, D.Raja, a Harijan, a CPI leader from Tamil Nadu appearing in a TV channel was to describe Sankararaman, the person killed in the precincts of Sri Varadarajaswami temple as an “innocent Brahmin”.

Asoke Sen, a barrister and a former union minister was once asked by fellow advocates in the car park of Supreme Court, on his compulsion for using a run-down car when he could afford new luxury models in keeping with his status. His reply was that there is a saying in Bangla that “ a known Brahmin does not need the sacred thread”.

Sri. Nara would remember the passage of Sri. Aurobindo I quoted, in which he was critical of Brahmins for not passing on learning and culture to rest of the society. Implicit is that they were custodians of learning and culture. There is an unanimity on that.

The respect for brahminism is so deep-rooted that all attempts like those of Basavanna and Narayana guru has met with only limited success. In fact all that happened was that Basavanna’s followers were transformed into a cult. Lingayats are now the torch-bearers of loosely knit Veera –Saivism groupings in south India.


As for conceit, it is not just the Brahmins had. Parasurama was determined to quell the pride of Kshratriyas by annihilating them. We have to have a clear distinction between the role and the personalities (or even a group) engaged in roles. A particular person can either enhance the prestige of a role by flawless execution, or can diminish the same by his/her ineptitude and corruption. If Brahmins are corrupted, they ought to be punished.

The constructive way of looking at all these is whether it is possible for Brahmins to transmit any of their legacy to rest of the Hindu population. If not possible, it is the larger Hindu population that has to lose much. We have go look beyond symbolic achievements of equality. Throwing baby with the bathwater is not what the larger Hindu population wants – it will just suit the anti-Hindu forces.


P.S.: Vaidyanatha Iyer led the entry of Harijans into the famous Meenakshi Temple at Madurai.
 
Last edited:
...diatribe on Brahmins similar to what Sri Nara and Happy Hindu are indulging in this forum on brahmins and brahminism.
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.

To me, reverence need not act as a barrier in speaking up against the above two points.

Am also of opinion that priests should be paid an income relevant to the present times. They and their children must find the profession worth it, to continue within it. Quitting is not the solution.

Regards.
 
....P.S.: Vaidyanatha Iyer led the entry of Harijans into the famous Meenakshi Temple at Madurai.
When people of Brahmin birth fight for progressive causes, they are making a powerful statement against Brahminism. 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.

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. Reject MDS unequivocally, say it is not valid for Kali Yuga or something. Open up Upanayanam to anyone interested. Encourage everyone to study your Veda and Vedanta. Make all this completely voluntary. Stop having this B and NB feeling, that is destructive to your own humanness. 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 :).

Cheers!
 
...
The constructive way of looking at all these is whether it is possible for Brahmins to transmit any of their legacy to rest of the Hindu population.

Shri Swami,

According to me the crux of the matter is what is highlighted (by me) above. 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. As all of us know, due to the efforts of progressive reformers, the Governments' actions etc., today temple entry, right to worship on an equal footing with all other castes etc., are available in many parts of the country to every Hindu, though exceptions are still there. Religious books, including veda books can be purchased by any one irrespective of caste. Most religious discourses are also public and the TV has made it available to one and all who like to view/hear those.

What remains, perhaps, is the study of vedas, mantras, the various religious rites - which are centred on the 'samakaaras' and temples; these are still preserves of the one community mostly viz., brahmins by birth. Are we prepared to transmit these to all people - irrespective of caste - interested in learning them and are found to have the necessary aptitude? Will the present priesthood connected with temples and outside (our "purohits", I mean) accept such a proposal? Will any of the mutts (Smarta, Srivaishnava, Vaishnava, etc.) welcome such a reform and also endorse them whole heartedly?

These are some of the crucial points which will need in-depth study. If you find no problem in getting such a reform getting under way soon, then I think your complaint against "brahmin-bashing" is correct - finding unfounded faults with brahmins, that is how I understand it; other wise it will prove that brahmins still have that exclusive mentality which was coupled with a superiority complex also in the olden days; it is this mentality that is being criticized.

I request all members to consider and give their views.

If not possible, it is the larger Hindu population that has to lose much. We have go look beyond symbolic achievements of equality. Throwing baby with the bathwater is not what the larger Hindu population wants – it will just suit the anti-Hindu forces
I would differ from your view. The Hindu population as a whole will not, in my considered opinion, lose any of their religious advantages, even if the brahmin legacy is not transmitted, because, today the hindus will be able to practice their religion without any dependence on the brahmin community. Even brahmins today go to temples for "annapraasanam", "vidyaarambham", "choulam", marriage, shashtyabdapoorthy, bheema-ratha saanti, sataabhishekam,etc.,; it will not be difficult at all to incorporate upanayanam, seemantam, and a few more remaining items into temple-based activities. Only funeral rites will remain unsolved, I think.

But since the brahmin community still keeps some parts as its (holy) preserve, the other communities are gracious enough to accept that. This is as much due to the withdrawal of brahmins from their exalted societal pedestal, to the reality today, as the good sense and absense of rancour towards brahmins by the non-brahmins. It is not to be construed immediately as a "respect" for brahmins still existing, etc. You mentioned "sub-conscious" respect. This is what actuated the "sanskritization" of almost every caste/sub-caste historically. Smt. HappyHindu is an authority on this topic. She will be able to furnish details. But this arose, IMO, not out of any genuine, sincere, "respect" - conscious or otherwise - for brahmins and their practices but mainly due to enlarging the castes-list and find a niche somewhat higher than the rest of their original caste-group. Perhaps this phenomenon was at its zenith during the British regime.
 
namaste everyone.

A recent news report indicates that the Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on conversion.
Conversion has no justification: SC
The Pioneer :: Home : >> Conversion has no justification SC

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."

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. 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.

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.
 
...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. 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.

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.

vaNakkam sai.

not too long ago, other communities were specifically barred or did not have the werewithal to study our scriptures. the peshwas, as late as 400 years ago, prescribed molten lead into the ears of any dalit who might even accidentally hear vedic chants.

mercifully, today, anyone, irrespective of caste or nationality can have a peep at the vedas and sink into it as deep as they want, without any fear of punishment.

sometimes, i suspect, that the most ardent vedists are those who are intent on finding the embedded inequalities and racistic ideologies within our scriptures, to undermine the faith in the eyes of many non brahmin hindus, and in the process, veer them towards other religions.

why be second rate hindu, when you can be a first rate mussalman or christian, they ask? do we have any arguements to combat this real or imagined sense of aggrievement?

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.

but within those nagarathar temples, there are strict rules and hierarchies for the chettiars, which even no brahmin can interfere.it is ok with the brahmins, because it does not directly affect our ecclesiastical functions.

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?

if we go one step beyond, to the dalits, who form 25% or so of the population, there might be another perspective.

i read somewhere that that within 2 generation in early 1800s, the entire hindu east bengal peasantry which was mostly dalits, was islamized - not by the sword, but by the gentle prodding of sufis, who invited them to an egalitarian faith, which did not differentiate, according to them, between the king and servant.

i just visited chennai, and went to thirupathi. every other mile was a new church, and i was told that these were mainly to attract the dalits.

the preachers too were converted dalits, who did not want anything to do with mainstream hindu casteism anymore. should we as brahmins be bothered about it?

after all, these dalits are doing exactly what you prescribe for them - ie no role in our ecclesiastic rituals. which per you, should be the sole function of those born to the brahmin caste. will we as hindus be able to combat an egalitarian philosophy, with our own stratified and compartmentalized one?

as you prescribe rules, sai, it may be worth your while, also to step through the consequences of each of your mindset edict, particularly in the context of today's world - the reality of mass communication, the sense of entitlement that runs across all castes for their share of the indian pie. and above all, the deadly effect of mass abandonment of the hindu faith and way of life by a sizeable portion of the population.

to sum up, i do not even know, if we have sufficient numbers of brahmins, spread across tamil nadu to bring the best of our traditions to the masses.

would we deny a kripananda warrior to perform a puja because he was a non brahmin?

many a times, i wonder, whether it would do any good to our hindu way of life, ie any good in the long term, by comparmentalizing religious duties as per castes and in the process assume certain functions for the brahmins, even though these are no longer remunerative to sustain a priest's family.

such attitudes appear to me, is going against the grain of today's thinking, which is one of entitlement for all in all. anything else would result, i think, would result only in apathy or antagonism - both of which being inimical to the hindu way of life.

what we need is mass participation and adulation, which i think, can be achieved only through open practice of absolute equality. i suspect the enormous popularity of ayyappan pilgrimage of late, and increasingly spreading to the north, is due to this sense of affinity of ayyappanmars, irrespective of caste or creed. why cannot we extend this to other aspects of hindu faith?

would not broad based opening up of all aspects of hindu religion to those who are interested and have a sense of vocation to dwell deep into the estoricism of our scriptures and assign these to perform public rituals, make sense?

instead of reserving these to a certain caste?

to sum up, i think, as we come up with 'shoulds and musts', it would do good, also to step through the consequences of the same. perhaps the realization of the results of some of our exclusive views, would convince us to abandon the same, and to embrace a more inclusive pan hinduistic approach to life, as opposed to a narrow caste based approach.

my fear, is that otherwise, we brahmins might be left alone, with an empty bag of philosophies with no one else to adhere to. and emtpy temples a phenomenon common enough in east bengal or west punjab.

something to think about seriously.

thank you.
 
Last edited:
....
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!
 
@ 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.
 
@ 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.
 
@ 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
 
“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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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!



 
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
 
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:
 
" 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.
 
“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.
 
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:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top