• 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.

How Varna/Caste System Harmed Brahmins

Status
Not open for further replies.
My reply

Dear administrator!

Thanks for intervetnion, As I'm tied up with other things forgive my belated reply.

As for your well intentioned advice in other threads due to time limit I may not reply all, But I'll reply then and there when time permits. Please accept my apologies . Generally I agree with you and I'll pay heed to my language in my future postings.


Dear Sri Malgova.Mango,

I find that your response to Sri Nacchinarkiniyan is based on a lot of misinterpretations. It is important to understand any poster's views in the way they have presented it. Otherwise it creates room for misunderstanding.

So here is what I felt was inaccurate in your interpretation...

I don't believe Sri Nacchinarkiniyan was questioning this.

The first and third paragraph of the thread starter indeed states that caste system is thought by rishis and they developed it unmistakenly giving the idea that VARNADHARMA IS somebody or somegroups conception. Hence the above reply. But if you believe otherwise I can't hep it.

The very sanskrit alphabets are enough to tell that the akshara's are not from ordinary human intelligence but of Ishvara's.

This is your opinion. Alphabets in any language by themselves do not say anything. The meaning a language points to, makes it superior. And that is my opinion. The larger point is, this idea is debatable. Not an established fact as you seem to imply.

The aksharas came from "Maheshvarani Sutram" ofcourse, it is only believed and not a fact, that it came from Ishvara itself. But the very belief has sanctity and not to be dismissed slightly.

As far the beauty and supermacy of the sanskrit alphabets over the other languages, and whether it says something, please ask the erudite scholars, if you are interested in gaining knowledge. But if you are content with your "opinion" I've nothing to say.

As I clearly said - There are no room for arguments in facts. The "believes " by nature can't be questioned. Only if some twisting either in belief or fact occurs then there are arguments. If the poster believes that he has the logic to twist the believes or facts, then it is his responsibility to establish why he said so. Simply by saying "I think this is not the case...." only will create resentments.

Why Varnadharma is by birth - "Mahaperiva" clearly explains his arguments and I ve nothing more to say.



I don't think Sri Nacchinarkiniyan said the caste system was created for the benefit of the Brahmins. Please go back and read his posting.

No arguments about our forefathers.

No definetly not nor did I said he is, In the flow of reply it just came.

Many of them lived a simple life not because of circumstances but by choice, They clearly saw the pursuit of artha and kama alone should not dominate one's life. They showed us discipline (aacharam) is more important and set forth various samskaras. They also showed us upto what extent one should pursue for artha and kama . That's why we have Artha shastra and Kama sutra – isn't it?

We don't know this for a fact - to the best of my knowledge we don't have any research conducted on why they did what they did.

Artha shastra and Kama sutra are facts. The aacharams they asked us to pursue or facts.

I don't think only facts are to posted and believes have no room.

To say women should not read sanskrit and all is not as per vedic spirit. There may be breaches but it is not the spirit.

I read his entire posting. He hasn't mentioned anything about women.

Please carefully read again.


That's why for learning we go to godesses “Sarasvathi” . The seers are not only Males but also FEMALES. There are number of (“mantra drishta” in female also) . That we put down female is very absurd. Infact Mami's have more of a say than Mama's is it not true?

No questions about this.

Fine

The fittest will survive , why then only we strive.


But remember the intention of shastras is to set what is proper for a peaceful existence.

This is irrelevant to the point that Sri Nacchinarkiniyan was making.

This has relevancy , please read carefully again.

On heredity, “appankku pillai thappama piranthirukkiran” is the general rule. There may be exceptions. It is easy to pick up the necessary skill from a family than to go and learn something new. This is how it was for hundreds of year that is the norm. This modern education is only a new concept in practice for 50 or more years.

Social environment is at least as important as heredity. To say that one is just like one's father is to discount the influence of the many, many changes we have in society today.

If you could read this in relation the poster you will find some relevance.
If in out-of context way, you want to highlight this , of course it is very obvious.

A fisherman son even though he goes to school he is expected to do what for his livelihood .
A buisnessman son even though he goes to school he is expected to do what for his livelihood?
What is proper here? Could you please explain.

All this has changed or is in the process of changing. Please recognize that we are living in a very different world.

Same as the above reply.

Malgova.mango

Regards,
Chintana
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Sri Brahmanyan Ji,

I absolutely agree with you on the merits of 'Thinnai Arrattal'. There have been many comments here in this Forum as well as in some other Forums, referring to discussions one disagrees with, calling it a waste of time because they are 'thinnai arrattal'.

Getting to know each other and understanding each other as friends is to do some of this arrattal. No one get serious about a topic and produce action plans and think others will follow unless one establishes the personal 'bonds'.

Pranams,
KRS

Thanks to Administrator "Chintana" for the timely intervention and course correction.

Of late, we find a new disturbing trend emerging in the Forum Posts due to some enthusiastic members trying to show their erudition by asking other members as to how and what they should write or discuss in this Forum.

This reminds me of the well known verse from Subhasishtam:

"Vidya dadaati vinayam. Vinaya dadaati paatrataam.
Paatratva dhanamapnoti. Danaat dharmam tatatsukham."

Learning begets humility; Humility gives character.
From character one gets wealth; From wealth one gets
righteousness and happiness.

Being Polite or humble, does not mean submissiveness, it is a noble quality of extending courtesy to others in words and deeds.

By the way I wish to know, what is wrong in "the chatter on the thinnai"?
In fact I enjoy it. I am aware of my limitations. I am an ordinary person who value simple things in life. In fact the "Tamil Brahmins" provides a stage (Thinnai) for the advancement of the community in the contemporary world without losing our roots.

As a matter of conviction I do not react to insinuations and sarcasm, where I prefer silence as the best answer.

Regards,
Brahmanyan.
 
Response to Malgova.Mango - I

Dear Sri Malgova.Mango,

My responses in maroon italics below...

Dear administrator!

Thanks for intervetnion, As I'm tied up with other things forgive my belated reply.

As for your well intentioned advice in other threads due to time limit I may not reply all, But I'll reply then and there when time permits. Please accept my apologies . Generally I agree with you and I'll pay heed to my language in my future postings.

Apologies accepted! I welcome any meaningful/useful contributions from you.

--

Originally Posted by Chintana
Dear Sri Malgova.Mango,

I find that your response to Sri Nacchinarkiniyan is based on a lot of misinterpretations. It is important to understand any poster's views in the way they have presented it. Otherwise it creates room for misunderstanding.

So here is what I felt was inaccurate in your interpretation...

I don't believe Sri Nacchinarkiniyan was questioning this.

The first and third paragraph of the thread starter indeed states that caste system is thought by rishis and they developed it unmistakenly giving the idea that VARNADHARMA IS somebody or somegroups conception. Hence the above reply. But if you believe otherwise I can't hep it.

I went back and re-read paragraphs 1 & 3. Sri Nacchinarkiniyan does say that the Rishis "thought" of the system. But I don't see that idea as inconsistent with your idea that the system was "revealed" to them. Why? Because those seers had destroyed ego. So by definition they were not producing any thoughts - those thoughts were all coming to them from elsewhere. So whether one says the rishis "thought" the system or that it was "revealed" to them - in this specific case it is one and the same because of the caliber of the rishis.

Your response is general was good. You could have avoided the last statement in your paragraph - you usually say that only when you give up on someone, not when you are still trying to convince/get a response from someone.








The very sanskrit alphabets are enough to tell that the akshara's are not from ordinary human intelligence but of Ishvara's.

This is your opinion. Alphabets in any language by themselves do not say anything. The meaning a language points to, makes it superior. And that is my opinion. The larger point is, this idea is debatable. Not an established fact as you seem to imply.

The aksharas came from "Maheshvarani Sutram" ofcourse, it is only believed and not a fact, that it came from Ishvara itself. But the very belief has sanctity and not to be dismissed slightly.

Nobody questions the sanctity of the beliefs involved here. I certainly didn't.





As far the beauty and supermacy of the sanskrit alphabets over the other languages, and whether it says something, please ask the erudite scholars, if you are interested in gaining knowledge. But if you are content with your "opinion" I've nothing to say.


Again, the last statement should have been avoided. As to "erudite" scholars - are you referring to Sanskrit scholars? Of course they will say their language is the best. If you ask Greek and Latin scholars about the superiority of their language, each will probably say theirs is the best. This is not a question of erudition - a question of where one's loyalties lie. If you like something you will be loyal to it.




As I clearly said - There are no room for arguments in facts. The "believes " by nature can't be questioned. Only if some twisting either in belief or fact occurs then there are arguments. If the poster believes that he has the logic to twist the believes or facts, then it is his responsibility to establish why he said so. Simply by saying "I think this is not the case...." only will create resentments.

Several posters present their views with good backing and research. Of course there are varying degrees of adherents.

(contd)



 
Response to Malgova.Mango - II

(contd)

Why Varnadharma is by birth - "Mahaperiva" clearly explains his arguments and I ve nothing more to say.

Good. So you subscribe to Mahaperiyava's views on this. Other posters may subscribe to other peoples' views on this. It is important to respect this difference.







I don't think Sri Nacchinarkiniyan said the caste system was created for the benefit of the Brahmins. Please go back and read his posting.

No arguments about our forefathers.

No definetly not nor did I said he is, In the flow of reply it just came.

Ok. Correction accepted.





Many of them lived a simple life not because of circumstances but by choice, They clearly saw the pursuit of artha and kama alone should not dominate one's life. They showed us discipline (aacharam) is more important and set forth various samskaras. They also showed us upto what extent one should pursue for artha and kama . That's why we have Artha shastra and Kama sutra – isn't it?

We don't know this for a fact - to the best of my knowledge we don't have any research conducted on why they did what they did.

Artha shastra and Kama sutra are facts. The aacharams they asked us to pursue or facts.

I don't think only facts are to posted and believes have no room.

In my previous response I see that I did not address this point fully. ArthaShastra (I am assuming you are referring to the one written by Kautilya) is a treatise on political science. And Kama Sutra is a "how-to-do" manual on physical pleasures. Neither of these texts, to the best of my knowledge have a holistic perspective on the rules of living for householders. Are you telling me that you are using these two texts as the basic sources from which we have developed our understanding of "acharams?" If yes, nothing could be more misleading.







To say women should not read sanskrit and all is not as per vedic spirit. There may be breaches but it is not the spirit.

I read his entire posting. He hasn't mentioned anything about women.

Please carefully read again.

I stand corrected. He has indeed mentioned something about women. But what he has said is that there was a a certain play called Mricchakatika written about 1000 years ago. This play (assuming it was written as a reflection of times) "reveals" that only men spoke Sanskrit and not women. That is all. He has not said women should not read Sanskrit.




That's why for learning we go to godesses “Sarasvathi” . The seers are not only Males but also FEMALES. There are number of (“mantra drishta” in female also) . That we put down female is very absurd. Infact Mami's have more of a say than Mama's is it not true?

No questions about this.

Fine

The fittest will survive , why then only we strive.


But remember the intention of shastras is to set what is proper for a peaceful existence.

This is irrelevant to the point that Sri Nacchinarkiniyan was making.

This has relevancy , please read carefully again.

Yes. I read. What he is saying in his posting is that the Varna System was harmful to the Brahmins. He didn't say anything about the Shastras.

But I get what you are saying - that it was not the intention of shastras to destroy the brahmins - the shastras were created to keep the peace within the community. I concur. But this raises other questions - Peace by whose standards? For what purposes? Who kept the social order? How much of it was practiced according to the spirit of the vedas? etc.





On heredity, “appankku pillai thappama piranthirukkiran” is the general rule. There may be exceptions. It is easy to pick up the necessary skill from a family than to go and learn something new. This is how it was for hundreds of year that is the norm. This modern education is only a new concept in practice for 50 or more years.

Social environment is at least as important as heredity. To say that one is just like one's father is to discount the influence of the many, many changes we have in society today.

If you could read this in relation the poster you will find some relevance.
If in out-of context way, you want to highlight this , of course it is very obvious.

Well, Sri N was saying that not all sons were as good as their fathers in the family profession. It may be easy for a son to pick up his father's trade but Sri N is saying that the aptitude was not there for many people - so they fell short of expectations.




A fisherman son even though he goes to school he is expected to do what for his livelihood .
A buisnessman son even though he goes to school he is expected to do what for his livelihood?
What is proper here? Could you please explain.

All this has changed or is in the process of changing. Please recognize that we are living in a very different world.

Same as the above reply.

I hope I cleared this up.


Malgova.mango

Regards,
Chintana
 
Please don't take trouble to reply of this kind.

Dear Mdm Chintana,


Dear Sri Malgova.Mango,

Apologies accepted! I welcome any meaningful/useful contributions from you.

Thanks and I do expect in reciprocation.
--



I went back and re-read paragraphs 1 & 3. Sri Nacchinarkiniyan does say that the Rishis "thought" of the system. But I don't see that idea as inconsistent with your idea that the system was "revealed" to them. Why? Because those seers had destroyed ego. So by definition they were not producing any thoughts - those thoughts were all coming to them from elsewhere. So whether one says the rishis "thought" the system or that it was "revealed" to them - in this specific case it is one and the same because of the caliber of the rishis.

The crux of the argument here is "existence vs creation" - that's it.

Your response is general was good. You could have avoided the last statement in your paragraph - you usually say that only when you give up on someone, not when you are still trying to convince/get a response from someone.

No comments right now - as i couldn't get what you mean


The very sanskrit alphabets are enough to tell that the akshara's are not from ordinary human intelligence but of Ishvara's.

This is your opinion. Alphabets in any language by themselves do not say anything. The meaning a language points to, makes it superior. And that is my opinion. The larger point is, this idea is debatable. Not an established fact as you seem to imply.

The aksharas came from "Maheshvarani Sutram" ofcourse, it is only believed and not a fact, that it came from Ishvara itself. But the very belief has sanctity and not to be dismissed slightly.

Nobody questions the sanctity of the beliefs involved here. I certainly didn't.

When you said that is your opinion. I replied this. - There is a tendency among the member to put down " belief" in converstaions i had here.

As far the beauty and supermacy of the sanskrit alphabets over the other languages, and whether it says something, please ask the erudite scholars, if you are interested in gaining knowledge. But if you are content with your "opinion" I've nothing to say.


Again, the last statement should have been avoided. As to "erudite" scholars - are you referring to Sanskrit scholars? Of course they will say their language is the best. If you ask Greek and Latin scholars about the superiority of their language, each will probably say theirs is the best. This is not a question of erudition - a question of where one's loyalties lie. If you like something you will be loyal to it.

Tha last statement is said to drive the point that knowledge is vast than opinions . Again your opinion clouds, It is not because of loyalty or emotional bonding with sanskrit. The inherent beauty and intelligence is unparalled. It is Ishvara's intelligence. No human intelligence can conceive that beauty. With human intelligence you get only "a,b,c......".

This is a statement that stands by itself.


As I clearly said - There are no room for arguments in facts. The "believes " by nature can't be questioned. Only if some twisting either in belief or fact occurs then there are arguments. If the poster believes that he has the logic to twist the believes or facts, then it is his responsibility to establish why he said so. Simply by saying "I think this is not the case...." only will create resentments.

Several posters present their views with good backing and research. Of course there are varying degrees of adherents.

(contd)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Mr.KRS.,

Without digressing much from the main topic, I wish to add that "the chatter on the Thinnai" in reality it a better place to discuss many subjects under the sky (without a pseudonym!). For me, nothing in the world is waste of time. In fact Time wastes by itself whether we act or not.( KAla, also means death, "often personified by the attributes of Yama".) Even in this Forum there is a thread "Coffee House - Chit chat", which I may compare with "the chatter on the Thinnai".

Regards,
Brahmanyan.
 
Last edited:
Contd/....

Contd/...

(contd)

Why Varnadharma is by birth - "Mahaperiva" clearly explains his arguments and I ve nothing more to say.

Good. So you subscribe to Mahaperiyava's views on this. Other posters may subscribe to other peoples' views on this. It is important to respect this difference.




I assume you write the above in a spirit of defence and you didn't really mean it.
One's view should be backed by convincing arguments to gain respect.
For a very mild example , if somebody is asked to respect the view that the earth is flat, is it fair?

Now that it's clear that there is no ressearch or any arguments to backup his views- what is your position?



In my previous response I see that I did not address this point fully. ArthaShastra (I am assuming you are referring to the one written by Kautilya) is a treatise on political science. And Kama Sutra is a "how-to-do" manual on physical pleasures. Neither of these texts, to the best of my knowledge have a holistic perspective on the rules of living for householders.



I don't know what your ideas about “holistic”. But Artha and Kama are “Purushartas” and play vital part in bringing proper maturity to a person.


Are you telling me that you are using these two texts as the basic sources from which we have developed our understanding of "acharams?" If yes, nothing could be more misleading.



A good spin. But don't worry, I didn't misconcieve.




To say women should not read sanskrit and all is not as per vedic spirit. There may be breaches but it is not the spirit.

I read his entire posting. He hasn't mentioned anything about women.

Please carefully read again.

I stand corrected. He has indeed mentioned something about women. But what he has said is that there was a a certain play called Mricchakatika written about 1000 years ago. This play (assuming it was written as a reflection of times) "reveals" that only men spoke Sanskrit and not women. That is all.

Oh is it? An innocent quote indeed. The poster is ready to accept some scenes from a “natak” as startling facts but he is having difficulty in accepting “Manu Smrithi” as facts. Good judgement.

He has not said women should not read Sanskrit.

Nor did I said he is.

The fittest will survive , why then only we strive.



But remember the intention of shastras is to set what is proper for a peaceful existence.

This is irrelevant to the point that Sri Nacchinarkiniyan was making.

This has relevancy , please read carefully again.

Yes. I read. What he is saying in his posting is that the Varna System was harmful to the Brahmins. He didn't say anything about the Shastras.

But I get what you are saying - that it was not the intention of shastras to destroy the brahmins - the shastras were created to keep the peace within the community. I concur.

Good discernment.

But this raises other questions - Peace by whose standards? For what purposes? Who kept the social order? How much of it was practiced according to the spirit of the vedas? etc.

Too many questions, you'll have to wait.


On heredity, “appankku pillai thappama piranthirukkiran” is the general rule. There may be exceptions. It is easy to pick up the necessary skill from a family than to go and learn something new. This is how it was for hundreds of year that is the norm. This modern education is only a new concept in practice for 50 or more years.

Social environment is at least as important as heredity. To say that one is just like one's father is to discount the influence of the many, many changes we have in society today.

If you could read this in relation the poster you will find some relevance.
If in out-of context way, you want to highlight this , of course it is very obvious.

Well, Sri N was saying that not all sons were as good as their fathers in the family profession. It may be easy for a son to pick up his father's trade but Sri N is saying that the aptitude was not there for many people - so they fell short of expectations.

Oh is it?






Malgova.mango

Regards,
Chintana
 
On belief

Dear all,

Please correct me If I'm wrong.

If one is a believer means – he has accepted the time-honoured believes.


One can't say that I'm a believer but my believes are different from the time-honoured believes.
Where is the logic?

The person, that is me, who criticized the baseless views, with the intent that those views will cause only confusion in the young minds, was put down as the very cause of dis-unity among the society. Eppadi?
 
Dear Sri Malgova.Mango,

My responses below...

Originally Posted by Chintana
(contd)

Why Varnadharma is by birth - "Mahaperiva" clearly explains his arguments and I ve nothing more to say.

Good. So you subscribe to Mahaperiyava's views on this. Other posters may subscribe to other peoples' views on this. It is important to respect this difference.

I assume you write the above in a spirit of defence and you didn't really mean it.

No. I wrote it from my view as an Administrator of this forum. We have a policy of allowing divergent ideas that are meaningful, productive and growth-promoting. We may or may not agree with them but we believe in giving posters the freedom of expression (of course we assume they will be mature and use it in a responsible manner). In other words, I meant every pixel of those words.

--

One's view should be backed by convincing arguments to gain respect.
For a very mild example , if somebody is asked to respect the view that the earth is flat, is it fair?

Well, there was a time when people had enough evidence to believe it. It is only when they had new evidence they changed their opinion.

--

Now that it's clear that there is no ressearch or any arguments to backup his views- what is your position?

I find that he has used a variety of information - he has used a basic idea from the Bhagavad Gita (which says caste is guna-based not birth-based), a link, a comparison (with Japanese community), a personal example, a drama called Mricchakatika, a piece of information from an interview with Arusuvai Natarajan and Manu Smrithi. How do you say that he has used no research?


--

In my previous response I see that I did not address this point fully. ArthaShastra (I am assuming you are referring to the one written by Kautilya) is a treatise on political science. And Kama Sutra is a "how-to-do" manual on physical pleasures. Neither of these texts, to the best of my knowledge have a holistic perspective on the rules of living for householders.

I don't know what your ideas about “holistic”. But Artha and Kama are “Purushartas” and play vital part in bringing proper maturity to a person.

Holistic means emphasizing the importance of the whole rather than the parts. When I said "holistic perspective" I mean comprehensive guidelines for householders.

I know that Artha and Kama are purusharthas.

But the texts you refer to do not discuss what you think they discuss - i.e., one is for a special section of society (i.e., Kings and administrators) and the other is purely for physical pleasure (which does not discuss the spiritual basis for such pleasure which is vital for every householder to understand).

I think you just looked at the title and decided that these two texts are authorities on Purusharthas. Nothing can be farther from the truth. If you think you want to disagree with me I recommend that you go and look up these texts, or atleast descriptions of them that you can find online and then decide how to respond. I am a patient person but if I find that your answer is less than well-researched I will not respond to you.

You asked me for my opinion on Sri Nacchinarkiniyan's posting: Here it is - Compared to your knowledge I find Sri Nacchinarkiniyan's much more deep, thoughtful and very well informed.

--

Are you telling me that you are using these two texts as the basic sources from which we have developed our understanding of "acharams?" If yes, nothing could be more misleading.

A good spin. But don't worry, I didn't misconcieve.

No. I am not the one spinning. I did not get the sense you understood what the contents of these texts are about.

--

To say women should not read sanskrit and all is not as per vedic spirit. There may be breaches but it is not the spirit.

I read his entire posting. He hasn't mentioned anything about women.

Please carefully read again.

I stand corrected. He has indeed mentioned something about women. But what he has said is that there was a a certain play called Mricchakatika written about 1000 years ago. This play (assuming it was written as a reflection of times) "reveals" that only men spoke Sanskrit and not women. That is all.

Oh is it? An innocent quote indeed. The poster is ready to accept some scenes from a “natak” as startling facts but he is having difficulty in accepting “Manu Smrithi” as facts. Good judgement.

Actually you are wrong on both counts. Firstly it is common practice for good researchers to look at the literature of the time to get an idea about the minds of the people who lived at that time. Sri Nacchinarkiniyan has followed this tradition. We learn things that the author implied in any piece of literature. This gives us an idea of how society must have been at that time. We have learnt so many things about English history and culture through our poetry lessons in our English classes. This is something like that.

Secondly, it is quite alright to disagree with something if one has good reasons to prove an alternative. Again, another good practice of research. So he has interpreted a wide variety of sources to make his point. A well-thought out argument.

--
He has not said women should not read Sanskrit.

Nor did I said he is.

Really?

This is a quote from your previous exchange with me. I am reproducing your exact words, "To say women should not read sanskrit and all is not as per vedic spirit. There may be breaches but it is not the spirit."

So you are demonstrating that you say one thing in one instance but deny it in another.


--

The fittest will survive , why then only we strive.

--

But remember the intention of shastras is to set what is proper for a peaceful existence.

This is irrelevant to the point that Sri Nacchinarkiniyan was making.

This has relevancy , please read carefully again.

Yes. I read. What he is saying in his posting is that the Varna System was harmful to the Brahmins. He didn't say anything about the Shastras.

But I get what you are saying - that it was not the intention of shastras to destroy the brahmins - the shastras were created to keep the peace within the community. I concur.

Good discernment.

Thank you for your compliment.

--

But this raises other questions - Peace by whose standards? For what purposes? Who kept the social order? How much of it was practiced according to the spirit of the vedas? etc.

Too many questions, you'll have to wait.

As you have demonstrated to me what your understanding of research is - I am quite realistic about what to expect from you.

--

On heredity, “appankku pillai thappama piranthirukkiran” is the general rule. There may be exceptions. It is easy to pick up the necessary skill from a family than to go and learn something new. This is how it was for hundreds of year that is the norm. This modern education is only a new concept in practice for 50 or more years.

Social environment is at least as important as heredity. To say that one is just like one's father is to discount the influence of the many, many changes we have in society today.

If you could read this in relation the poster you will find some relevance.
If in out-of context way, you want to highlight this , of course it is very obvious.

Well, Sri N was saying that not all sons were as good as their fathers in the family profession. It may be easy for a son to pick up his father's trade but Sri N is saying that the aptitude was not there for many people - so they fell short of expectations.

Oh is it?

If this is a direct question, the answer is yes.

If this is a sarcastic question, don't waste my time.


--

Malgova.mango

Regards,
Chintana
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri Malgova.Mango,

Dear all,

Please correct me If I'm wrong.

If one is a believer means – he has accepted the time-honoured believes.

Yes, provided that person is a blind-believer.


One can't say that I'm a believer but my believes are different from the time-honoured believes.
Where is the logic?

It is called introspection. Bhagavan Krishna says that is one of the most important qualities for any person to develop spiritually (I cannot remember the chapter and verse off the top of my head).

What this means is we must understand basic principles of right living and learn to practice them in ways suitable to our times. So if some of our practices do not help us uphold basic principles laid out by Him, they can and should be changed. Because that is what Sri Krishna said.

To not understand this is to follow beliefs blindly, unquestioningly. If one doesn't question, one doesn't get knowledge. If one does not get knowledge, one cannot become an all-knowing Gnani/Yogi. To grow spiritually and get to God we must constantly check whether what we are doing is in accordance with His teachings.


The person, that is me, who criticized the baseless views, with the intent that those views will cause only confusion in the young minds, was put down as the very cause of dis-unity among the society. Eppadi?

Young minds are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves. Nobody has to decide for them. What we can do for young minds is to present clear views and set an example for them. We set an example through principles of tolerance - for e.g., showing respect for others' opinion in this forum that one does not agree with; through principles of humility - e.g., apologizing if one makes a mistake; through principles of friendship - e.g., support everybody in this forum; through practice of non-ego - e.g., try to look at the truth of another poster's views without the intent to condemn.

Before you respond I highly encourage you to do 2 things:

1. Read our mission statement

2. Read this posting of mine about how posters should deal with Moderators/Administrators in this Forum. http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?p=9305#post9305

Please see if these ideas are in agreement with yours. This is basically what you can expect from this forum and what we as the Administrators expect from you. Your association with us will be fruitful only if you feel these ideas are in accordance with yours. Otherwise it would be a mutual waste of time.

Best Regards,
Chintana
 
Last edited:
Hope this will not be considered impertinent on my part to jump in, in a discussion between a member and a moderator, to put forth my opinion. If it is considered not appropriate I request the moderator to remove this posting.

It is my opinion that when Sri MMji used the words 'artha saasthra' and 'kaama suthra' he did not refer to those famous works that Sow. Chintanaji has referred to but any other literature/s that deal with the two purusharthas viz. artha and kaama.

I believe Sri MMji has lot of good and wise things to say but may be handicapped by his command over the language or the nuances of presentation that might lead to a lot of misunderstanding.

In my opinion the difference between Sri MMji and Sri Nachiji is on the question of handing down the traditional knowledge of the household from the father to the son.

Now, of the traditional trades, that which are of economic advantage, have been taken over by corporations who employ people and either train them themselves or get them as trained personnel from schools or other employers, to carry on with their money making enterprise. These corporations in turn become subject to the vagaries of economic and trade cycles and that in turn begin to affect the workforce into immigration and emigration cycle from their 'trade'. There are other non-economical knowledges such as for example bommalaattam or kudharaiaattam or even priesthood etc. that become utter casualties in the corporate culture. They are sought to be revived by the entertainment industry which again is driven by the force of the law of demand and supply. In all this the father-son knowledge relationship is broken. This is the unfortunate situation under the 'capitalistic' mode of production that we have inherited from the British colonialists. ('Socialist' mode of production of the Marxian variety is not the panecea. Unfortunately this is far bigger topic to be dealt with here).

Hindus in the past have built empires and until the Christian colonialists usurped our destiny, India remained the Industrial workshop of the world. The colonialists broke our back, marauding our production system, plundering our wealth and sending our people into the open in destitution and famine. Shamefully, most secularists white wash this fact and they try to show some advantage of colonialism.

Before the colonial curse, we of the Bharatvasha propspered under the system of varnasrama dharma that enabled the individuals and the society as a whole to realize their respective purusharthas.

Many of us do believe that India would have ushered into the industrial revolution without affecting our basic value system as found in the varnasrama dharma had it not been for the interruption of colonialism. Our own pre-colonial prosperity whether under big empire or small prinicpality is a testimonial to this.

Many of us do believe that the so called capitalistic society and its so called 'democratic and secular' characters are mere sheen and glitter behind which there is vehemence, fraud, debauchery and so on that are going to drive the society to ruin and disintegration and certainly no purushartha would be possible at all under this system.

This is the context in which the handing down of the respective trades of the fathers to their children have to be understood. In a system of varnasrama dharma, it is true that the father-son relationship is the driving force in the bequeathing of the inheritance of knowledge. To all arguments to the contrary, it is well known fact that the system per se worked well.

The destruction of the system leads to the capitalistic, socialistic or communistic abberations of extreme cruelty.

And many of us do believe, that despite the ardent nature of the contrarians to denigrate and paint the varnasrama dharma into something obscene and depraved, the rudiments are not dead and cannot be dead as sanaathana dharma would assert its ever freshness with a vengeance. We are thus the proud beings who have put our hands on the long rope that would draw this manoratham to its rightful destination.

Jai Sri Ram!
 
Last edited:
Response to Ramaa - I

Dear Sri Ramaa,

Hope this will not be considered impertinent on my part to jump in, in a discussion between a member and a moderator, to put forth my opinion. If it is considered not appropriate I request the moderator to remove this posting.

As an intervention, this is unwarranted. Sri MM and I are still in conversation where we have expressed a willingness to listen to each other's points of view. As long as the concerned parties are still willing to talk to each other, other people should not intervene - because the best chances of resolving any issue lies with the concerned parties ONLY. Only if there is some kind of a disrupt that causes the concerned parties (who mean well for each other) to not talk to each other, THEN an intervention is good.

So I see this posting of yours as posted in favor of Sri MM's views. NOT as an intervention.

To THAT, you can certainly have my response.

It is my opinion that when Sri MMji used the words 'artha saasthra' and 'kaama suthra' he did not refer to those famous works that Sow. Chintanaji has referred to but any other literature/s that deal with the two purusharthas viz. artha and kaama.

Artha Shastra and Kama Sutra are titles of works done.

Artha and Kama are concepts important for the householder phase of life.

A title is different from a concept.

If one does not know this basic difference then one should not accuse another of not using proper sources and research.

Sri Ramaa, your defence is noble. But in this case it is misplaced. I hope you take this in the right spirit.



I believe Sri MMji has lot of good and wise things to say but may be handicapped by his command over the language or the nuances of presentation that might lead to a lot of misunderstanding.


Unfortunately, we at this electronic forum where we cannot see each other face-to-face HAVE to rely on our words as our ambassadors.

One needs to be clear about what one is expressing in the forum because that CAN indeed lead to misunderstanding as we are witnessing here.

So to be good at meaningful electronic exchanges one must develop the skill of being able to express oneself clearly. There is no way of avoiding this.

Also I think command over language is an overrated thing. It is amazing how the personality and the thinking of the individual comes through even in a few simple words. This I say from my experience moderating.

Bottomline, if thoughts are right, language will be right.




In my opinion the difference between Sri MMji and Sri Nachiji is on the question of handing down the traditional knowledge of the household from the father to the son.

Oh no! It is much more than that. Sri MM believes Sri N disregards the Shastras, that Sri N disrespects the very beliefs that form the core of the Brahminical way of life, that Sri N mentioned that women should not study the Vedas...it is a long list as my previous exchanges with Sri MM shows. These are pretty serious allegations, Sri Ramaa. They are not made because Sri MM lacks the language skills. And I believe that those allegations are unfair to Sri Nacchinarkiniyan.

If as you say that Sri MM made those remarks only because of inadequate language skills then he should not have a problem expressing his apologies to Sri Nacchinarkiniyan when some clarifications have been made, no?



Now, of the traditional trades, that which are of economic advantage, have been taken over by corporations who employ people and either train them themselves or get them as trained personnel from schools or other employers, to carry on with their money making enterprise. These corporations in turn become subject to the vagaries of economic and trade cycles and that in turn begin to affect the workforce into immigration and emigration cycle from their 'trade'. There are other non-economical knowledges such as for example bommalaattam or kudharaiaattam or even priesthood etc. that become utter casualties in the corporate culture. They are sought to be revived by the entertainment industry which again is driven by the force of the law of demand and supply. In all this the father-son knowledge relationship is broken. This is the unfortunate situation under the 'capitalistic' mode of production that we have inherited from the British colonialists. ('Socialist' mode of production of the Marxian variety is not the panecea. Unfortunately this is far bigger topic to be dealt with here).

Sri Nacchinarkiniyan was not saying anything about capitalism or colonialism. He only said that not all sons were as good as their fathers in their trade. Reciting the Vedas is an extremely difficult skill to learn and many sons could not be as good as their fathers in this. So if those sons did not try and seek other means of livelihood they would have died. To save themselves they sought other occupations. So that's why today we have so many Brahmins in different kinds of professions. This is the point he was making. Capitalism and Communism are separate topics - that has nothing to do with Sri N's views in that specific posting.


Hindus in the past have built empires and until the Christian colonialists usurped our destiny, India remained the Industrial workshop of the world. The colonialists broke our back, marauding our production system, plundering our wealth and sending our people into the open in destitution and famine. Shamefully, most secularists white wash this fact and they try to show some advantage of colonialism.

Please avoid using descriptors such as "shamefully". There is nothing shameful about having a different point of view. Can we learn how to respect people who don't believe the same things as we do?

Secondly, if you are referring to secularists in general I would need to write an entire book by way of response.

But if you are referring to anybody in this forum I assure you that nobody is "white-washing" anything. Please remember that many of us here are well-thinking, well-meaning individuals who hold very serious responsibilities in the outside world. Many of us (if not all) are sensitive human beings who do our best to be good professionals, good friends, good fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, sons and daughters. In the middle of this we are trying our level best to be good Brahmins too. And we are trying very hard to figure out how.

Some of us who are not in this camp have had the opportunity to be closer to following traditional Brahminical principles which are Vaideeham-based. We believe that if everyone would just listen to us and continue to do just what we have been taught everything will be alright. We believe in promoting a community feeling by sharing the same things. We are community oriented but find it difficult to accomodate difference. We are trying to reconcile this confusion while trying to bear the insults thrown at us Brahmins, while working very hard to get our sons and daughters into good educational institutions and jobs, while trying to take care of our aged parents, trying to instill proper values in children, in the midst of the growing influence of global television.

Bottom line, we are all people trying to be Brahmins the best way we know.

It is wrong to condemn anybody for his/her beliefs and opinions simply because they are not ours.

Do you think, as Brahmins, - as the great community of people who were once thought to be so close to godliness, as people who had mastered their egos, as people of spiritual wealth of which kindness and generosity is an integral part - we are still capable of tolerance and nice words?

(Contd)
 
Last edited:
Response to Ramaa - II

(Contd).

Before the colonial curse, we of the Bharatvasha propspered under the system of varnasrama dharma that enabled the individuals and the society as a whole to realize their respective purusharthas.

History has taught us that nothing stays the same. Change is the only permanent thing in the world. If it had not been for the colonial rule something else would have happened that would have caused other disruptions.

I am reminded of Bhagavan Sri Krishna's words: "Everything that happened in the past was exactly as it should have been, everything that happens in the present is exactly as it should be and everything that happens in the future will be exactly as it should be."

Like individuals, communities and nations have their karma too.

Many of us do believe that India would have ushered into the industrial revolution without affecting our basic value system as found in the varnasrama dharma had it not been for the interruption of colonialism. Our own pre-colonial prosperity whether under big empire or small prinicpality is a testimonial to this.

But in pre-colonial times we were 500 princedoms (more or less) fighting with one another. We were never one country. The idea of India came with the British because they wanted to have easier administrative divisions.

Also our transportation and communication system is what it is today, thanks to the British. We speak English today and are able to compete better than the Chinese because of colonial rule.

Did you know that Gandhi initially thought that the British rule of India was a good thing? He has said this in his autobiography. He fought in South Africa because he wanted everybody to be treated as "members of the Empire". It was much later that he thought that the British rule of India was evil.

Don't get me wrong. Nobody has the right to take away anybody's freedom. But I believe that colonialization happened for a reason. If we take our lessons from that experience and move on our lives will be better. We cannot change history.



Many of us do believe that the so called capitalistic society and its so called 'democratic and secular' characters are mere sheen and glitter behind which there is vehemence, fraud, debauchery and so on that are going to drive the society to ruin and disintegration and certainly no purushartha would be possible at all under this system.

What do you suggest we do? Several of us are employed in big multi-national firms that promote global capitalism.

Do you want us all to resign?

And then what do we do?


This is the context in which the handing down of the respective trades of the fathers to their children have to be understood. In a system of varnasrama dharma, it is true that the father-son relationship is the driving force in the bequeathing of the inheritance of knowledge. To all arguments to the contrary, it is well known fact that the system per se worked well.

It may have worked well in the past. But you have to understand that there are certain changes that have happened everywhere in the world in the last 100 years, not just in India. The world has seen two World Wars, we have had industrialization, mass media, nuclear weapons and what have you. Even if British hadn't invaded India it would have been impossible for us to not relate and react to the outside world in some way.

Sooner or later we would have had to make adjustments.



The destruction of the system leads to the capitalistic, socialistic or communistic abberations of extreme cruelty.

I agree with you. But currently we don't have viable alternatives to global capitalism currently. Unless you have ideas about this that you want share.


And many of us do believe, that despite the ardent nature of the contrarians to denigrate and paint the varnasrama dharma into something obscene and depraved, the rudiments are not dead and cannot be dead as sanaathana dharma would assert its ever freshness with a vengeance. We are thus the proud beings who have put our hands on the long rope that would draw this manoratham to its rightful destination.

Jai Sri Ram!

Sri Ramaa, I get the sense that any critical view about Varnashrama Dharma bothers you greatly.

I invite you to think about what the Varnashrama Dharma was intended to achieve.

If you believe that it is just a collection of habits and practices then changing it is hard indeed.

But if you believe that those collection of habits and practices were intended for us to achieve a higher goal then please think about whether later interpretations and practices of Varnashrama Dharma achieved it.

Regards,
Chintana
 
Last edited:
And many of us do believe, that despite the ardent nature of the contrarians to denigrate and paint the varnasrama dharma into something obscene and depraved, the rudiments are not dead and cannot be dead as sanaathana dharma would assert its ever freshness with a vengeance.

Since Sri Ram Ji used the not often used word 'contararians' here, and since this word was used to describe me by Sri Fehu Ji once before, let me also add my comments. I can very well take his words as abusive towards me, but I won't.

Firstly, no one is 'denigrating' Varnashrama Dharma or saying that it is 'obscene' and 'depraved', at least not me.

My argument is that it has outlived it's usefulness long time ago and what we practice to day is not Varnashrama Dharma. Casteism was born long time ago and the social system that started with much useful and benign aim, has degraded in to evil casteism. So, we see a whole class of people who are not even included in the system of castes! Mind you, I am not saying that this came about because of Brahmins, but it did come about, where a whole class of people are treated as less than humans.

We see Buddhism in 5 BCE came about mainly as a response to Hinduism then not taking care of the spiritual lives of it's lowly castes. This is why Gautama (wrongly in my opinion) did not adopt the Vedas as the supreme authority of his religion and adopted a very common language then to write his theism other than Sanskrit. This shows that the evil effects of casteism existed even way back then.

Hinduism then adopted, developing the Purva Mimamsa and the Nyaya schools of thoughts to compete with Buddhism, and adopted several 'moral' codes of conduct from Buddhism. This is one of the main reasons why Buddhism died in India.

So, when the Mughals invaded, one can see that the Dharma was not there. India was occupied by the foreigners like the Mughals and the British mainly because the Kshatria Dharma of uniting to fight a foreigner was not there. So, it was easy to divide and rule. So, we see that casteism again contributed to this where no one thought outside of his clan. And the handful of examples to the contrary are just that. Handfuls.

So, the final blow to the body of this pseudo-Varna Dharma, which should not even be termed as Varna Dharma, but should be called for what it has become, an ugly casteism, came about because of the advent of modern industrialization with the advent of fast mobility (trains, planes etc.) which allowed people to 'escape' their own villages and places of abode in search of better living. Once this happens, how can one practice the Varna Dharma as stipulated, where a Brahmin can not do anything else except spend his days in doing various daily rituals?

What about this concept of passing down a father's 'jobs' to his sons? (leaving alone the fact that the daughters don't need to apply). Is it possible in modern times where a father who has specialized knowledge about, let us say, Nuclear Physics, to pass down it to his children, who may not have any aptitude for the science at all? This worked in ancient times because of the simplicity of a village life where avocations and skills can be handed down. But, in my opinion, this was not God given. This is a debatable issue within Hinduism with two different schools of thought as I have mentioned elsewhere.

So, can we go back to the original Varnashrama Dharma? To do that the following must take place:

1. All four Varnas, including the Dalits must agree to go back. Now what do you think is this chance?

2. India should step aside, not taking part in the inevitable forward march of industrialization around the globe, fueled by advances in Science and Technology.

3. India should become a Hindu theocratic state. What is the chance of this? At present some of us even question the validity of certain Hidu stalwarts as one of the idea generators of Hinduis. In a small Forum like ours, we can not even agree to disagree, in civil terms.

4. Drive out other minorities from India, because in such a Varna Dharma oriented administration, they will not have any voice. Because our Shastras say that they are Milecchas and if a Brahmin ever comes in to contact with one, he should not live thereafter.

Is this all possible? I don't think so. So instead of worrying about all this, which is all but an impossible dream, let us define how do we improve our current lot in the current circumstances that we find ourselves in.

My two cents.

Pranams,
KRS
 
Dear Sow Chintanaji/Sri KRSji,

I should have split my post into two and posted separately, one, with reference to that involving the three of viz. Sri MM, Sri N and Sow Chintanaji. You did notice that it was my sympathy for what I perceived to be a handicap that I wanted you to consider. I completely agree with you Chintana ji that I could have stayed out of it. My apologies.

The second part which is my own view of the world that is not directed at any one for if I had that in mind I would not have hesitated to say at whom it is directed with quotations if possible. This is a lesson that I had learnt from one of my previous postings. Unfortuantely It is the nature of Sri KRS to own unclaimed property as below and I am helpless in this matter.

Since Sri Ram Ji used the not often used word 'contararians' here, and since this word was used to describe me by Sri Fehu Ji once before, let me also add my comments. I can very well take his words as abusive towards me, but I won't.
As much as I did you both have touched on lot of subjects that intertwine with each other. I hope to discuss them threadbare in days to come.

Regards,
Ramaa
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri Ramaa,

Thank you for your understanding and receptivity.

I hope for the part of the question that you wanted to ask me you have received satisfactory answers.

Best Regards,
Chintana

Dear Sow Chintanaji/Sri KRSji,

I should have split my post into two, one, with reference to that involving the three viz. Sri MM, Sri N and Sow Chintanaji. I completely agree with you Chintana ji that I could have stayed out of it. My apologies.

The second part which is my own view of the world that is not directed at any one for if I had that in mind I would not have hesitated to say at whom it is directed with quotations if possible. This is a lesson that I have learnt from one of my previous postings. Unfortuantely It is the nature of Sri KRS to own unclaimed property as below and I am helpless in this matter.

As much as I did you both have touched on lot of subjects that intertwine with each other. I hope to discuss them threadbare in days to come.

Regards,
Ramaa
 
Dear Srimathi Chintana,

My replies below...

No. I wrote it from my view as an Administrator of this forum. We have a policy of allowing divergent ideas that are meaningful, productive and growth-promoting. We may or may not agree with them but we believe in giving posters the freedom of expression (of course we assume they will be mature and use it in a responsible manner). In other words, I meant every pixel of those words.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This doesn't mean you have no right to defend other views. [/FONT]
--
One's view should be backed by convincing arguments to gain respect.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The 2nd statement is the crux , the first statement and the example connects the 2nd statement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]By ignoring the crux, and demonstrating your fine skill of circumventing the issue , is not the quality that you expect from others. I suppose.[/FONT]

Well, there was a time when people had enough evidence to believe it. It is only when they had new evidence they changed their opinion.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In that time, it is still absurd to expect respect, without convincing arguments.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]How about this example –what if you are asked to respect the views of self-respect movements?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If you don't have any arguments , just leave it , there is no compulsion for you to beat the bush.[/FONT]

--
I find that he has used a variety of information - he has used a basic idea from the Bhagavad Gita (which says caste is guna-based not birth-based), a link, a comparison (with Japanese community), a personal example, a drama called Mricchakatika, a piece of information from an interview with Arusuvai Natarajan and Manu Smrithi. How do you say that he has used no research?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You said that poster is supposed to be backed by research and the poster said that it is only his views, didn't you saw that post ? where he quoted some mathematical equation. The one just before he said he'll quit , I also saw your reply. I believe you didn't miss that. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now are you telling me the post itself is a research material. Are you serious? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]He didn't talked about Bhagavat – Gita in that post.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The japan caste system and the quote from natak , neither support the conclusion that jati should be thrown to dust-bin of history nor it says anything on jati should be based on guna nor it supports the argument the somebody created jatis.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Interpretation of Manu Smriti's Arya-vrata and arriving at the conclusion that it excludes deccan plateu is questionable. No supporting material is shown on how one arrives to this conclusion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It is also doesn't support the concluding statement to throw jatis to the dust bin of history and the personal experience stated also doesn't support the conclusion.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even the poster openly admitted it is only his views So on what basis you call this research?[/FONT]
--
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The intent behind the statement of Artha and Kama is to say that we didn't neglect other purushartas and that's all to it. Since this subject doesn't hamper the spirit of the issues raised here (mainly we are focusing on Jati) , it is very good not pursuing it further. [/FONT]




You asked me for my opinion on Sri Nacchinarkiniyan's posting: Here it is - Compared to your knowledge I find Sri Nacchinarkiniyan's much more deep, thoughtful and very well informed.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I asked for your position and not opinions. [/FONT]

--
No. I am not the one spinning. I did not get the sense you understood what the contents of these texts are about.

Oh , so you cooked up something and expected me to explain, is it?--

Actually you are wrong on both counts. Firstly it is common practice for good researchers to look at the literature of the time to get an idea about the minds of the .......

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Any”natak” at the best, is just a reflection of time and at the worst, it is a total distortion of reality, it all depends on the integrity of play-write. It doesn't reveal any thing to the effect, to put the Jati system in the dust-bin of history. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If this is how you establish truths and call it research, then there is no difference between the educated and the illiterate. The illiterate also concluded seeing the ” nataks” of self-respect movements as truths.[/FONT]

--

This is a quote from your previous exchange with me. I am reproducing your exact words, "To say women should not read sanskrit and all is not as per vedic spirit. There may be breaches but it is not the spirit."

So you are demonstrating that you say one thing in one instance but deny it in another.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Read carefully before you jump to conclusion. [/FONT]



Thank you for your compliment.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Actually it is in half jest and half surprise remark. You are unable to connect Shastra and Varna Dharma but somehow managed to get what I meant.[/FONT]

--
--



Well, Sri N was saying that not all sons were as good as their fathers in the family profession. It may be easy for a son to pick up his father's trade but Sri N is saying that the aptitude was not there for many people - so they fell short of expectations.

Oh is it?

If this is a direct question, the answer is yes.

If this is a sarcastic question, don't waste my time.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I concluded, that in any rule, exceptions are only to be expected. Exception doesn't define the rule. Completely ignoring what I said, you are focusing on the exceptions. So the remark came in jest.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]No sarcasm is not a waste of time, it has its place and purpose. It is a subtle way of telling “Think before you speak”[/FONT]
--
Regards
Malgova.mango
 
Dear Srimati Chintana,

If one is a believer means – he has accepted the time-honoured believes.

Yes, provided that person is a blind-believer.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Any belief could only have supporting arguments and if it has proving arguments then it is a fact. With well supported arguments none other than by “Maha Periava” it is not “blind belief”.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even if you say it is “blind belief”, Is he not a believer?[/FONT]


It is called introspection.

The Baseless views are called introspection?

Bhagavan Krishna says that is one of the most important qualities for any person to develop spiritually (I cannot remember the chapter and verse off the top of my head).

What this means is we must understand basic principles of right living and learn to practice them in ways suitable to our times. So if some of our practices do not help us uphold basic principles laid out by Him, they can and should be changed. Because that is what Sri Krishna said.

To not understand this is to follow beliefs blindly, unquestioningly. If one doesn't question, one doesn't get knowledge. If one does not get knowledge, one cannot become an all-knowing Gnani/Yogi. To grow spiritually and get to God we must constantly check whether what we are doing is in accordance with His teachings.

Good, then come up with convincing arguments. Here the focus is only on Jati. On 4-13 sloka of Bhagavad gita - the interpretaion that to state varna dharma based on guna is ruled out by the reasoning of "Maha periava" .

If you guys want to rebuke that then do it with logic and reason.


Young minds are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves. Nobody has to decide for them. What we can do for young minds is to present clear views and set an example for them. We set an example through principles of tolerance - for e.g., showing respect for others' opinion in this forum that one does not agree with; through principles of humility - e.g., apologizing if one makes a mistake; through principles of friendship - e.g., support everybody in this forum; through practice of non-ego - e.g., try to look at the truth of another poster's views without the intent to condemn.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Young mind means – where thinking faculty is not developed to its potential, if otherwise it is a matured mind and no more a young mind. I'm talking about apples and you are about oranges. [/FONT]



Before you respond I highly encourage you to do 2 things:

1. Read our mission statement

2. Read this posting of mine about how posters should deal with Moderators/Administrators in this Forum. http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?p=9305#post9305

Please see if these ideas are in agreement with yours. This is basically what you can expect from this forum and what we as the Administrators expect from you. Your association with us will be fruitful only if you feel these ideas are in accordance with yours. Otherwise it would be a mutual waste of time.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Many times unjust things are said and done, ducking under the big words. [/FONT]

Best Regards,
malgova.mango
 
Some more arguments....

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The arguments below are to support, the view that SEERS only approved and acknowledged the existent practice of determination of one's vocation based on birth. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Before the advent of modern education...... [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]How the societies function? Is it not apparent that sons carried what father did? [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Japanese culture is not vedic culture, but still the vocations are determined by birth. This concludes that birth played a very natural role in the choice of one's vocation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]There are no “Rishi Mulams” for the four varnas. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even NOW...[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Monarchies, though now only ornamental, of Western Europes, and much relevant ones in Arabia and tribal Africa are succeeded by heredity only. Big Buisiness dynasties like Tata,Bajaj,Ambanis or even some Japanese,Korean and Western ones are carried by birth only.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Our dear politicians, also follow the traditions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The fishing,the gold-smith communities are still carried by chains of generation based on birth. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]One cannot dismiss the role of birth in formations of the communities cheaply. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Closing my eyes, I can say majority of the forum members here, are Brahmins only by birth. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]One doesn't need to be a “Seer” to acknowledge the obvious facts. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Modern Education rudely, ignored the realities of nature, this in turn results in lot of tension to the human psyche in the societies of the world. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sri Rajaji, tried to keep the natural order and suggested “Kula Kalvi thittam” but the words fell in deaf ears. The politics of that time already showed signs of decay.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I've many grievences with the Modern Education system. But I'll deal with that in another time.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Concluding....


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]To blame, Varna Dharma based on Jati, for all the misfortune happened to the community is unacceptable. Any system will have its own weakness and strength.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Upon introspection, we all could easily agree that out of 1180 sakhas given by Veda Vyasa what's left is not even 1 % only 10 to be exact. This clearly demonstrates the we idled our time in waste, without the required commitment to the study of Vedas. This is the foremost reason for all the misfortune our community faces. If we don't face the issue squarely and pass the blame to something else , there would be no escape from the misfortunes.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Subha Mangalam[/FONT]
Regards
Malgova.mango


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]p.s[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]With a sense of collective responsibility I've concluded this , but I must admit that I haven't completed adhyayana of my shakha only learnt the mantras of Sandhya-vandana from my Guru. But I intend to complete this at the earliest opportunity. [/FONT]


[/FONT]
 
Dear Nachinaarkiniyan,
"jani" - praadurbhaave (SAMSKRITHA GRAMMER) affirms Varna is determined on da basis of birth
This point was repeatedly insisted by Swaami Raamsukh Dass of Gita press who was not a brahmin by birth
But I personally do not uphold any of da theories
All r. in dispute stage only right from da days of Mahabharatha
But we must do something to da suppressed mass of Tamil Brahmins
Regards,
R.DEVARAJAN
 
I am reminded of Bhagavan Sri Krishna's words: "Everything that happened in the past was exactly as it should have been, everything that happens in the present is exactly as it should be and everything that happens in the future will be exactly as it should be."

I don't believe there's a verse like this in Gita. Can you give me the chapter and verse number for this? There are many spurious (gita) verses you may find on calenders and sweet boxes in TN, but they're NOT from the gita at all. One such fake verse is "whatever happens, happens for the best...."

Just for the record, though, Gita itself is proof that caste is birth based, and NOT guna-based. Those who know Sanskrit must be aware of the verse I am referring to. Unfortunately, because most people lack Sanskrit knowledge, they mistake cause for the effect, hence believing that caste is based on guna.
 
Dear Suresh,

What is 'guna' according to your understanding, what is guna 'based' human means and why a Brahmin IS or IS NOT 'guna' based?

Regards,
saab
 
Dear Sri Malgova.Mango,


Dear Srimati Chintana,

If one is a believer means – he has accepted the time-honoured believes.

Yes, provided that person is a blind-believer.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Any belief could only have supporting arguments and if it has proving arguments then it is a fact. With well supported arguments none other than by “Maha Periava” it is not “blind belief”.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even if you say it is “blind belief”, Is he not a believer?[/FONT]

You said "time-honoured beliefs". So if someone is accepting something that is "time-honoured" WITHOUT stopping to check if their applications are different (with essential principles being the same) that is called blind-belief. What Sri N did in his posting was to question whether some practices respected the original, true belief.



It is called introspection.

The Baseless views are called introspection?

Bhagavan Krishna says that is one of the most important qualities for any person to develop spiritually (I cannot remember the chapter and verse off the top of my head).

What this means is we must understand basic principles of right living and learn to practice them in ways suitable to our times. So if some of our practices do not help us uphold basic principles laid out by Him, they can and should be changed. Because that is what Sri Krishna said.

To not understand this is to follow beliefs blindly, unquestioningly. If one doesn't question, one doesn't get knowledge. If one does not get knowledge, one cannot become an all-knowing Gnani/Yogi. To grow spiritually and get to God we must constantly check whether what we are doing is in accordance with His teachings.

Good, then come up with convincing arguments. Here the focus is only on Jati. On 4-13 sloka of Bhagavad gita - the interpretaion that to state varna dharma based on guna is ruled out by the reasoning of "Maha periava" .

If you guys want to rebuke that then do it with logic and reason.

You are spinning the argument into several tributaries. The basic reason I interevened was that Sri N was not guilty of your accusations.

In the above lines I was not talking about jati. Just the idea of introspection. THAT I believe I have explained clearly and quite logically.




--
Young minds are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves. Nobody has to decide for them. What we can do for young minds is to present clear views and set an example for them. We set an example through principles of tolerance - for e.g., showing respect for others' opinion in this forum that one does not agree with; through principles of humility - e.g., apologizing if one makes a mistake; through principles of friendship - e.g., support everybody in this forum; through practice of non-ego - e.g., try to look at the truth of another poster's views without the intent to condemn.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Young mind means – where thinking faculty is not developed to its potential, if otherwise it is a matured mind and no more a young mind. I'm talking about apples and you are about oranges. [/FONT]

Not at all! The "apples and oranges" - that phrase is inapplicable. I think young people follow examples set by their parents and other elders. If the parents/elders don't do what they say - the children are quick to understand that.

--

Before you respond I highly encourage you to do 2 things:

1. Read our mission statement

2. Read this posting of mine about how posters should deal with Moderators/Administrators in this Forum. http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?p=9305#post9305

Please see if these ideas are in agreement with yours. This is basically what you can expect from this forum and what we as the Administrators expect from you. Your association with us will be fruitful only if you feel these ideas are in accordance with yours. Otherwise it would be a mutual waste of time.



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Many times unjust things are said and done, ducking under the big words. [/FONT]

And many times people simply make no effort to understand. They treat every difference in opinion as an offence and keep arguing - defending their ego - in the process not trying to see if there is a kernel of truth in what the other person is saying.



Best Regards,
malgova.mango

Best Regards,
Chintana
 
Dear Sri. Malgova.Mango,

Dear Srimathi Chintana,

Please address me as Sowbhagyavathi Chintana or Sow. Chintana.

My replies below...

No. I wrote it from my view as an Administrator of this forum. We have a policy of allowing divergent ideas that are meaningful, productive and growth-promoting. We may or may not agree with them but we believe in giving posters the freedom of expression (of course we assume they will be mature and use it in a responsible manner). In other words, I meant every pixel of those words.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This doesn't mean you have no right to defend other views. [/FONT]

That is exactly what I have been doing. I have been defending Sri Nacchinarkiniyan's posting. I have been saying that your accusations of his posting are not right.
--
One's view should be backed by convincing arguments to gain respect.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The 2nd statement is the crux , the first statement and the example connects the 2nd statement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]By ignoring the crux, and demonstrating your fine skill of circumventing the issue , is not the quality that you expect from others. I suppose.[/FONT]

I think this statment has been taken out of a part of a paragraph in my previous posting. I believe I keep the logic and the main point of any posting in my mind before I respond. And several posters in this forum have actually complimented on my sense of logic and careful thinking. If the way I do my job does not come across as well-thought out - I have really nothing to say to you.

Well, there was a time when people had enough evidence to believe it. It is only when they had new evidence they changed their opinion.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In that time, it is still absurd to expect respect, without convincing arguments.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]How about this example –what if you are asked to respect the views of self-respect movements?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If you don't have any arguments , just leave it , there is no compulsion for you to beat the bush.[/FONT]

Again you have taken out a convenient part of my previous message and posted it here. This practice is called "taking something out of context".

My point is that your accusation of Sri N's posting was unfair. I believe I have backed up this view point with solid view points.

--
I find that he has used a variety of information - he has used a basic idea from the Bhagavad Gita (which says caste is guna-based not birth-based), a link, a comparison (with Japanese community), a personal example, a drama called Mricchakatika, a piece of information from an interview with Arusuvai Natarajan and Manu Smrithi. How do you say that he has used no research?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You said that poster is supposed to be backed by research and the poster said that it is only his views, didn't you saw that post ? where he quoted some mathematical equation. The one just before he said he'll quit , I also saw your reply. I believe you didn't miss that. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now are you telling me the post itself is a research material. Are you serious? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]He didn't talked about Bhagavat – Gita in that post.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The japan caste system and the quote from natak , neither support the conclusion that jati should be thrown to dust-bin of history nor it says anything on jati should be based on guna nor it supports the argument the somebody created jatis.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Interpretation of Manu Smriti's Arya-vrata and arriving at the conclusion that it excludes deccan plateu is questionable. No supporting material is shown on how one arrives to this conclusion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It is also doesn't support the concluding statement to throw jatis to the dust bin of history and the personal experience stated also doesn't support the conclusion.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even the poster openly admitted it is only his views So on what basis you call this research?[/FONT]

If you want to know what is research or how research is conducted please read a good book or take some classes on it. Your views on this clearly tell me you don't know what research is or how it is done.
--
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The intent behind the statement of Artha and Kama is to say that we didn't neglect other purushartas and that's all to it. Since this subject doesn't hamper the spirit of the issues raised here (mainly we are focusing on Jati) , it is very good not pursuing it further. [/FONT]




You asked me for my opinion on Sri Nacchinarkiniyan's posting: Here it is - Compared to your knowledge I find Sri Nacchinarkiniyan's much more deep, thoughtful and very well informed.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I asked for your position and not opinions. [/FONT]

No. You asked me for my opinion. Go back and check your posting.

My position is based on my opinion - which I have mentioned several times in my response to you - that Sri N's posting is based on good research and that your accusation of him is unfair.

The sub-point that I have made is that you do not understand what research is and that you should not be commenting about it.

Do you understand what I am trying to convey to you?



Contd...
 
Response to Malgova.Mango (contd)

...(contd)


Dear Sri Malgova.Mango,

--
No. I am not the one spinning. I did not get the sense you understood what the contents of these texts are about.

Oh , so you cooked up something and expected me to explain, is it?--

Actually you are wrong on both counts. Firstly it is common practice for good researchers to look at the literature of the time to get an idea about the minds of the .......

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Any”natak” at the best, is just a reflection of time and at the worst, it is a total distortion of reality, it all depends on the integrity of play-write. It doesn't reveal any thing to the effect, to put the Jati system in the dust-bin of history. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If this is how you establish truths and call it research, then there is no difference between the educated and the illiterate. The illiterate also concluded seeing the ” nataks” of self-respect movements as truths.[/FONT]

You clearly don't know what research is - so please do not comment on it.

It is not my job to give you a class on research.

If you don't understand something please do us all a favor and go and read up on it before trying to post anything.

--

This is a quote from your previous exchange with me. I am reproducing your exact words, "To say women should not read sanskrit and all is not as per vedic spirit. There may be breaches but it is not the spirit."

So you are demonstrating that you say one thing in one instance but deny it in another.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Read carefully before you jump to conclusion. [/FONT]

I have done that. And find that you are unwilling to be reasonable, cannot listen, understand or accept another point of view that is different from your own.

--

Thank you for your compliment.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Actually it is in half jest and half surprise remark. You are unable to connect Shastra and Varna Dharma but somehow managed to get what I meant.[/FONT]

I have been able to understand and establish that Sri N's posting was based on good research. And yours was not.

That was what I wanted to achieve in my intervention.

I believe I have done that.

--
--



Well, Sri N was saying that not all sons were as good as their fathers in the family profession. It may be easy for a son to pick up his father's trade but Sri N is saying that the aptitude was not there for many people - so they fell short of expectations.

Oh is it?

If this is a direct question, the answer is yes.

If this is a sarcastic question, don't waste my time.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I concluded, that in any rule, exceptions are only to be expected. Exception doesn't define the rule. Completely ignoring what I said, you are focusing on the exceptions. So the remark came in jest.[/FONT]

Sri N was saying that there were enough number of exceptions among Brahmins to the general rule of reciting Vedas that they created a trend of taking up jobs that had nothing to do with Vedic recitation. So yes, the exception, according to him created the general rule.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]No sarcasm is not a waste of time, it has its place and purpose. It is a subtle way of telling “Think before you speak”[/FONT]

Well, that is your preference. Please practice it with those who appreciate it. To me, sarcasm is an unnecessary waste of time. I prefer directness. If you have a point, make it. Otherwise don't make it. I don't like unnecessary winding and jabs - that kind of jest irritates me. I don't have a whole lot of time in the world to respond to something that annoys me so I hope you will not use this behavior on me.
--
Regards
Malgova.mango

Technically, I consider my intervention as over. I have no wish to continue this discussion with you. I wanted to establish that Sri N did base his posting on research and that your accusation of him was unfair.

The next time you accuse somebody of not doing proper research I will expect your posting to show that you understand what it means to do research.

Please do not expect such a detailed response from me everytime.

I believe I have done my best in trying to make you understand what I mean.

Regards,
Chintana
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top