Haha, good try, but I am not intimidated by psychological games. You must debate an issue, not a person or his background.
Sorry sir i did not think merely mentioning my disappointment for an academic saying such things, is called "intimidating" by "psychological games".
I wholeheartedly agree we must debate the issue not the person / his background. If so, then you too wud not say this to me, you wud have addresed only the issue (shd i take this to be intimidation tactics by psychological games?):
1) But you seem to bother so much about a phantom superiority and that it somehow affected so many people.
2) You are making a mountain out of a mole.
Say what? you were the one citing Smirthis as "Theory that represented Brahmins". When I play the same game as you do, you get upset, you don't want Theory but practicals. When I cite practicals you want theory. Drop this catch-22 now!
Am not at all upset sir. When did i ever say i dont want theory but practicals? When did you cite practicals? Please can you really give me evidence that brahmins were poor in the past.
Everybody did occupations. That doesn't mean they were rich or someone evil enough to scheme to oppress others. And "Bhavathi Bhikshantheki" is how brahmins were supposed to live some part of their life. Yes, they are supposed to beg and eat for some years.
So parpanars did occupations. If so, then, what was the need for them to beg. Unless someone was a renunciate sanyasi. Are present-day brahmins claiming they descended from renunciate sanyasis? Please can you tell me why should a purohit beg when he is given things, as his fees for conducting ceremonies? Please note, we had this discussion in this forum a long back. If interested you may look up my old posts by clicking on View Posts from my profile.
Who the hell is this Buddist Brahmin you coined new? We are debating Hindus. If you haven't read all those old story books, whether panchatantra or amar chitra katha, or even ramayana and Mahabharata, how am I responsible for you missing some classics?
So sir, you are saying there were poor brahmins in ramayana, mahabharata? I can remember sudhama and drona being poor. Sir, are you saying present-day brahmins descended from brahmins of ramayana, mahabharata? Also sir, are you saying all brahmins were always poor based on these stories?
Wrong. Those aren't brahmins. Brahmins don't take weapons and fight. And their life philosophy is not to go after wealth. And even in your imaginary world if someone did that, that is no proof they discriminated others. You are not only stretching your imagination, you are now moving into outright science fiction.
There is inscriptional evidence that they were brahmins. Also sir, if we must accept stories, we must accept the list of kshatropeta-brahmanas (kshatriyas claiming to be brahmins) also. Sir, i have a request for you, please do not give me advice. Let us stick to the discussion points only. But i suppose am not clear perhaps. If sangom sir were around he cud have explained things better. Sangom sir, if you are around, can you please explain the long-standing fights between brahmins and kshatriyas to Dr.Barani please?
Lets see...aren't you the one going to say "casteism affects lot of people"... How can you make two exactly opposite claims in the same post?
I said - "Did i say brahmins did some harm? No i did not. I only said brahmins were rich". This pertained to your claims that brahmins were always poor. Not to the caste-discrimination part. Was there caste-discrimination? Yes there was.
There is ample evidence from the colonial period itself how brahmins discriminated against low-castes... i suppose when the landed became landless, they did learn their lesson.
Battle caste? for what? in what way Brahmins stood against others from going after their desires?
Till date, brahmins (the orthodoxy) upholds smrithis which says a shudra cannot own wealth, cannot wear the marks of a brahmana, has to eat the remnants of an arya, can be tortured, has to be a brahmana's slave, and what not.....Yes this is caste discrimination. By upholding such smrithis as divine, the orthodoxy merely rubs salt in wounds. We had a discussion long back in this forum on the India untouched documentary:
1) YouTube - India Untouched - The Movie - Part 1
2) YouTube - India Untouched - The Movie - Part 2
3) YouTube - IN SCHOOLS - India Untouched - The Movie - Part 3
4) YouTube - India Untouched - THe Movie - Part 4
5) YouTube - India Untouched - THe Movie - Part 5
6) YouTube - sikhs in India Untouched - THe Movie - Part 6
7) YouTube - Sikhs in India Untouched (in Punjab) - The Movie - Part 7
8) YouTube - India Untouched - THe Movie - Part 8
9) YouTube - India Untouched - THe Movie - Part 9
Watch this Kashi high priest:YouTube - India Untouched - The Movie - Part 2 – It is for those who claim ‘brahmins’ do not 'oppress' today.
There are only two sides "brahmins, nonbrahmins". Where does the poor brahmin get his "social standing" from? From other Brahmins? Then why is it a concern of nonbrahmins? Let Rich nonbrahmins give a social standing to poor nonbrahmins. If they can't, stop blaming the brahmins for it.
A poor brahmin gets his social standing from his caste. The poor dalit is not as lucky.
But you just claimed the opposite a minute ago asking "did I say brahmins did harm"!
i suppose my post was not clear. I was trying to go in segements, from the wealth part to the discrimination part. Anyways, hopefully am clearer now. Yes, brahmins have caused social harm by involving in caste-discrimination.
This is getting rubbish. If Mr.X doesn't want Mr.Y to touch him, it is Mr.X's basic right. Mr.Y cannot complaint about it. For that matter I wouldn't let 90% of people (brahmins or nonbrahmins) to touch me!
We are talking of how people justify the untouchability of smrithis as being applicable in the modern world in secular places. You may not allow anyone to touch you, but that does not mean a group has to remain untouchables by birth by caste.
So, Smirthis are rubbish scriptures? FINE!!! We are finally getting somewhere. Now will you please stop citing such "rubbish scriptures" as proof of your claims? Thank you!
Yes they are rubbish. If they are rubbish, why are they upheld by mutts? Why should it be the face of our orthodoxy?
The point is simple: if you think some script is rubbish, dont use it as example. if you think it has impact, then rewrite another for yourself. What is so hard about this academic logic?
Sorry sir, but this academic logic is ridiculous. You are expecting dalits to write that 'we are superior'...(????)...makes no sense really...
I don't understand why you make this so complicated:
-Brahmins are nonviolent group. They don't take weapons and fight. If you followed why Shankara became an important Guru, it is because he defeated Jains in debate but refused to behead them (which was the norm in that era). Hence, a nonviolent group could NEVER threaten or harm another group. It is a ridiculous argument to claim that they somehow oppressed a majority of people simply telling "go away! don't touch! I don't like you!". Even if they made those statements, it is their right. But that is no proof they wilfully stood against the desires and prosperity of nonbrahmins. If anyone gets the blame, you should blame the rulers for it - blame the kings and emperors.
Not true. Brahmins have been a group involving in warfare and trade.
All of you should stop finding caste-excuse to justify your economic backwardness. That won't take you anywhere, since only your own merit can bring you success. Once you start finding an excuse there is no end to it. You will go all the way back by 65M years to stake claim that you were illtreated by Dinosaurs.
Looks like the advice applies one-way. Anyways, everyone knows caste-excuse is not going to help anyone. Its brahmins who make a lot of noise claiming reservations should be removed.