Ramanuja and Non Brahmins

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

My response below in 'blue':

Dear Shri KRS,

Our differing views on the reservation system has been discussed some two years ago and we then practically agreed to continue our disagreement, if I remember right. I for one, believe in the inevitability of the Law of Karma - as some of our members have come to express in the other thread about Angelina Jolie - and so, in my view, the reservations is the result of the past karmas based on the very same caste discrimination which possibly went on for millennia. It is like the same stone which is thrown up coming down! While one may score a debating point by pointing out that this reservation goes against a secular and equal society, etc., the question is whoever said we are having (or even aiming to achieve) "a true secular and equal society"? Secular - yes, but only ‘sovereign socialist secular democratic republic’ as per the Preamble to our Constitution — no one has claimed "true", kindly note. The type and extent of each of these (socialism, secularism, democratic nature, etc.) will be as defined by the rest of the Constitution.
I believe in individual karma. I even believe in a Nation's karma. For modern India it started when the nation was born. I do not believe in 'group karma based on a group of folks based on ethnicity/caste etc. Only if one believes that once a soul is born in to a brahmin family will always be born in to a brahmin family, what you say may apply. I do not believe it to be the case. Even if one does not believe in reincarnation of souls or existence of souls, I do not believe that the apportioned karmaphala explains this - quota system, while seemingly punishes some groups has not helped the disadvantaged either. Actually in a way the brahmins have found a way to prosper. Besides, a social policy is an act of man - made with free will. So I do not accept your theory. Sorry.

I don't know in what exact sense you are using the word "humanism" since it is a vague term and has many connotations. I believe that even when people lived in hamlets in ancient India, humanism was there but like many human societies of those days all men were not considered as equal and having a right to equality before civil or divine dispensation of justice.
My definition of 'humanism' is this:
An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
This was not present in any ancient society as far as I know. This outlook distinctly came in to being during the western renaissance, notably nurtured by the Medicis in Italy.

Our society till the modern times did not practice this.

It is also not correct to say that "So called 'Brahminism' came about because of the structure of Hinduism - which was sacerdotal-"

First of all there was no "hinduism" then; what existed was a society which scrupulously learnt the three vedas and engaged in the many vedic sacrifices as a means to attain a desirable after-life. This society considered the entire population other than its three classes (brahmana, kshatriya and vaisya) as some kind of lowly or sinful births, uncivilized or anArya, etc. But when you say that brahminism came about because the society was sacerdotal, I think the idea that "priests can act as mediators between human beings and God/s" was not very well-established in the Rigvedic hymns; even in the yajurveda this sacerdotalism is not very clear. It is only after the renaissance under the Gupta empire that this kind of uplift of the priestly class seems to have gained currency. As time passed and elements of the Bhakti movement from the south, of the tantras and agamas and so on, got inter-mixed with the vedic way of life we had the full-blown brahminism. But such a construct may not be in consonance with the arguments very often raised in this forum to the effect that brahmins had ever been a meek and poor class living out of the largesses of the other two higher castes who, by means of their political and muscle powers, made these meek brahmins compose all those pro-brahmin and pro-dwija rules and all strictures against the sudras.
I used 'Hinduism' to denote the practice (did not want to use the often used term, 'Sanatana Dharma'), because I think that the caste lines were clear even in pre Gupta period. Rg Veda has clearly defined Samhitas as well as Yajur. All of Karma Kanda is nothing but describing the sacerdotal duties of the brahmins. They were supposed to be performed by the then brahmins. I don't understand your derogatory adjectives about brahmins. They were caught in the political/cultural milieu of the day. Like any system they were a cog in the wheel and did things to preserve that way of life and religious practice of that day. There is no evidence that they knew what they were doing was wrong - in fact, there is evidence to show that they believed what they did was right before their Gods. I do not think in this, they were insincere. My point is you are flogging them with today's standards of humanism, which I frankly think you are wrongly applying to degrade a class of people's motivation. Yes, they were wrong in terms of an humanistic approach, but they were not ogres as you describe. The system has failed ALL Hindus. All your other comments about this Forum etc., are irrelevant to this discussion - I have already said that after the British, we brahmins did wrong.

This was the problem which I wanted to bring to the notice of Shri Brahmanyan in post #19.

Regarding your problem, "I wonder what those children of then Brahmins who had the intellect akin to mine and who could not master the Vedas or the language did?", the answer is here:

"One who is born of a brāhmaṇa father but does not act as a brāhmaṇa is called, in Vedic language, a brahma-bandhu, and is calculated to be on the level of śūdras and women. Thus in the Bhāgavatam we find that Mahābhārata was specifically compiled by Vyāsadeva for strī-śūdra-brahma-bandhu. Strī means women, śūdra means the lower class of civilized human society, and brahma-bandhu means persons who are born in the families of brāhmaṇas but do not follow the rules and regulations carefully. All of these three classes are called less intelligent; they have no access to the study of the Vedas, which are specifically meant for persons who have acquired the brahminical qualifications. This restriction is based not upon any sectarian distinction but upon qualification. The Vedic literatures cannot be understood unless one has developed the brahminical qualifications."
(Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 4 Chapter 1 Verse 3)
I was not talking about anyone who were not 'qualified'. I was talking about people who 'qualified' according to their castes, but were low performers, because their innate God given (yes, God given!) talent lay outside of their caste qualifications.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

Yesterday night I was reading 2 interpretations of the Shloka.

Paramhansa Yogananda's commentary is that the list is Papah Yonah,Stri,Vaisya and Sudra and not that Papah Yonah are Stri,Vaisya and Sudra.

He said that this stanza is not to cast a slur on any of these categories but to just to emphasize that apparent social inequality does not bar anyone from attaining the Supreme State.


Swami Chinmayananda has given a different version.

For him he says that Papah Yonah are Stri,Vaisya and Sudra but he has given his commentary as :

Papah Yonah means "demerit status" which might hinder a person's spiritual journey.

So he said that Stri here does not mean women but the feminine qualities of emotions and attachment.

He said Vaisya here does not denote a caste but denote the calculative minded who are always looking for fruits of action.

Sudra also does not mean a caste but denotes slothful and inertia.

So he said that no matter what..even all these types can still attain the Supreme State.

But however I do not see full logic in Swami Chinmayananda's explanation cos if he is going by Gunas..that is Stri =emotions/attachement, Vaisya=calculativeness, Sudra =inertia...then stanza should have also had the word Kshatriya cos Kshatriya =Rajas/Passion.

So Swami Chinmayananda's commentary might not that be that accurate.

I agree with Paramahansa Yogananda's explanation cos he was talking about social inequality..that makes sense cos both Brahmana and Kshatriya were not included in that stanza cos in ancient days both Brahmana and Kshatriyas were literally "ruling" the society.

As I said in my earlier post that Vaisya is also twice born and initiated to study religion etc..so technically how can a Vaishya be a Papah Yonah if he is a twice born??

So to me I feel I rather go by the explanation of Paramhansa Yogananda and also from my own understanding too..cos Krishna Paramatma would have only said words that were beneficial for the world.

Krishnam Vande Jagat Gurum.

Smt. Renuka ji,

It seems to me that you are uncomfortable with the fact that as per BG (which you consider are the very words truly uttered by Krishna, the avatar of the supreme lord) women have been classified as pApayOni or as sinful or base births just like shudras and vaishyas.

I personally hold the view that Krishna has been a character very carelessly painted by whoever composed the Mahabharata because a person who was in the habit of stealing butter & curd during childhood, stealing the clothes of bathing women when he grew up, indulged in amorous dances with many gopis and indulged himself aplenty with their "peena payOdharas" again and again, etc., has never been depicted as having the capacity to compose even a couplet in sanskrit anywhere. Hence, to me this Krishna could not have uttered even one of the shlokas of BG, though this is contrary to what you and many more people have been brought up to believe in.

Some scholar has written this shloka which depicts the social norms of his times. Almost all of the eleven commentaries to which I cited a reference in an earlier post also endorse Adishankara's commentary only.

Hence, it is up to you to hunt out for some contemporary commentary which suits your preference. But your obsession looks childish to me; what harm is there if someone said something hundreds of years ago? For example we have the following statement:

"One who is born of a brāhmaṇa father but does not act as a brāhmaṇa is called, in Vedic language, a brahma-bandhu, and is calculated to be on the level of śūdras and women. Thus in the Bhāgavatam we find that Mahābhārata was specifically compiled by Vyāsadeva for strī-śūdra-brahma-bandhu. Strī means women, śūdra means the lower class of civilized human society, and brahma-bandhu means persons who are born in the families of brāhmaṇas but do not follow the rules and regulations carefully." (Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 4 Chapter 1 Verse 3).

There may be many statements like these, derogatory to today's women in other scriptures also. Will it be possible to whitewash all of them? Also, does Paramahamsa Yogananda occupy as high a place in our religion as Adishankara, Ramanuja, etc?
You may think calmly.

 

[sarang]

There was no caste system before the british arrived. We had a varna, kula, jati system. All varnas, kulas and jatis had definite rights and responsibilities with overlaps and flexibility.

Ramanujacharya was a follower and upholder of varnasrama dharma and never advised anyone to deviate from that. He did not differentiate people on issues like learning/ teaching, worship, and religious discussions. Azhwars have learnt vedas and sung prabandams and different varna births have not deprived them of in any way as far as religious and secular lifestyles are concerned or the respect and devotion they commanded.

Brahmins as a varna were supported and protected by the other varnas in the past; why this was so, if brahmins were arrogant and were always putting down other communities. Brahmins were a uniting force in the community, village and the kingdom. That is why, the invaders, the british and the portugese have explicitly stated that brahmins must be eliminated physically or converted if they had to gain control over Bharat. This mindset we have inherited from the british has made some of us think that brahmins are responsible for all the ills, all the poor and so called lower jatis were and today are crushed by the brahmins. It is sad that a stage has come when brahmins have to be protected from brahmins. We all should read and put into practice what Kanchi sankarachariyar has said in Devathin kural; we can follow varna dharma, follow a profession, be secular and respect other varnas at the same time, with whatever adjustments one thinks is needed in his case.

A brahmin minister's job is to advise the king and let the king decide; and then follow the king's order.

I request you to look the brahnin varna - other varna issue from from the indian dharmic angle and not swayed by the high decibel power detractors. Brahminism and discrimination are two different issues; there is more discrimination practiced by others - other religions not excluded.

Recent wiki leak: Sonia Gandhi wanted to ban bajrangdal; ex president Narayanan advised her not to, as most of the other religion-institutions (christian as well) will have to face a similar fate.

Varna dharma model is special to our land and will survive. In religious discourses of other regions - hindi, telugu, gujarati etc - varna classification is mentioned and discussed without any tension. Why some tambrams seem to be uncomfortable even by mere lipping?

It is surprising to see that most of us shy away from accepting the fact that strong caste based discrimination was there among the Hindu community as per the prevailing social practices of that time. Sri Ramanuja was one among the few brave Acharya Mahapurushas who broke the system by their various acts. Similarly Sant Dhyaneshvar translated Srimath Bhagavad Gita in Marathi to reach the common man. These greatmen set the pace for future reformists.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renuka ji,

It seems to me that you are uncomfortable with the fact that as per BG (which you consider are the very words truly uttered by Krishna, the avatar of the supreme lord) women have been classified as pApayOni or as sinful or base births just like shudras and vaishyas.

I personally hold the view that Krishna has been a character very carelessly painted by whoever composed the Mahabharata because a person who was in the habit of stealing butter & curd during childhood, stealing the clothes of bathing women when he grew up, indulged in amorous dances with many gopis and indulged himself aplenty with their "peena payOdharas" again and again, etc., has never been depicted as having the capacity to compose even a couplet in sanskrit anywhere. Hence, to me this Krishna could not have uttered even one of the shlokas of BG, though this is contrary to what you and many more people have been brought up to believe in.

Some scholar has written this shloka which depicts the social norms of his times. Almost all of the eleven commentaries to which I cited a reference in an earlier post also endorse Adishankara's commentary only.

Hence, it is up to you to hunt out for some contemporary commentary which suits your preference. But your obsession looks childish to me; what harm is there if someone said something hundreds of years ago? For example we have the following statement:

"One who is born of a brāhmaṇa father but does not act as a brāhmaṇa is called, in Vedic language, a brahma-bandhu, and is calculated to be on the level of śūdras and women. Thus in the Bhāgavatam we find that Mahābhārata was specifically compiled by Vyāsadeva for strī-śūdra-brahma-bandhu. Strī means women, śūdra means the lower class of civilized human society, and brahma-bandhu means persons who are born in the families of brāhmaṇas but do not follow the rules and regulations carefully." (Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 4 Chapter 1 Verse 3).

There may be many statements like these, derogatory to today's women in other scriptures also. Will it be possible to whitewash all of them? Also, does Paramahamsa Yogananda occupy as high a place in our religion as Adishankara, Ramanuja, etc?
You may think calmly.

Dear Sangom ji,

I am not uncomfortable with the fact from BG but I am uncomfortable that many men think of it wrongly...after all Lord Krishna did not write such a commentary.

The best for us is to ask Lord Krishna what He really meant if we have a doubt.

It might sound far fetched to some when I say that we should ask Lord Krishna for an answer but in reality if we are sincere enough God will reply us through someone or may be in a dream.

Coming to Lord Krishna...Raseleela happened when He was a juvenile and not an adult.

Further more dancing is not a crime..when we are in love with the idea of God..the dance is not sexual in nature.
The dance is at a higher level.the dance of Purusha and Prakirti..where Lord Krishna becomes Omnipresent for all Gopikas.

Rasaleela is Sayujya in action and nothing less.

Coming to the taking the clothes of Gopikas..that is to test body consciousness.

A true devotee should not be body conscious in front of God...just like how when we go to a doctor we are not shy to remove our clothes for treatment.
Some religions forbid a women to be lesser clad while praying and they need to cover up fully to pray to God.

To me I feel that is being body conscious that we view God as different from us.

A true devotee should feel comfortable praying even in the nude cos after all the body is just a garment.

To me that is what the episode of stealing clothes was trying to convey.

Lord Krishna was not sexually assaulting anyone but these episodes have been the fantasy of all poets and writers who might have been having a secret suppressed sexual desires after all Indian poetry has always been almost like soft porn..so it is not fair we shift the blame on Lord Krishna when men wrote all sorts of things in our puranas.

Coming to who has a higher plane in our religion..whether if it is Shankara,Ramanuja or Yoganananda..for this all I can say each master comes for a specific reason best suited for the thinking capacity and the culture of the audience of the era.

 

[sarang]

Sooner we stop using the word 'Caste', the better for us all!

Caste as social capital - Business Line​

Decades ago, an elderly gentleman speaking at the Gandhi Peace Foundation in Delhi, asked, “What is it that keeps the country down”? A young man responded: “Undoubtedly caste. It has kept society backward”. The speaker replied, “may be”. He paused for a moment and said “may not be”.
The young man angrily asked him to explain his “may-not-be” theory. The speaker calmly mentioned just one fact that shocked the audience. He said, “before British rule, over two-thirds — yes, two-thirds — of Indian kings belonged to what is today known as the Other Backward Castes (OBCs)” — meaning that the OBCs, who constitute two-thirds of the population, lost their power, wealth and status to colonists.
The young man changed for ever after the meeting. The speaker was Dharampal, a Gandhian, who, like his preceptor, was in ceaseless pursuit of truth, however unpopular it was. His assertion was backed by decades of painstaking study in India, England and Germany. But his lonely voice was lost in the stentorian chorus dismissing caste as total evil.
In the absence of rigorous, home-grown intellectual work, the contemporary Indian leadership, too, conveniently approved the received western scholarship on India. But decades after he spoke, is Dharampal proving right after all? Read on.

Caste as social capital - Business Line - The Hindu Business Line : Mobile Edition

 

[sangom]

Caste as social capital - Business Line​

Decades ago, an elderly gentleman speaking at the Gandhi Peace Foundation in Delhi, asked, “What is it that keeps the country down”? A young man responded: “Undoubtedly caste. It has kept society backward”. The speaker replied, “may be”. He paused for a moment and said “may not be”.
The young man angrily asked him to explain his “may-not-be” theory. The speaker calmly mentioned just one fact that shocked the audience. He said, “before British rule, over two-thirds — yes, two-thirds — of Indian kings belonged to what is today known as the Other Backward Castes (OBCs)” — meaning that the OBCs, who constitute two-thirds of the population, lost their power, wealth and status to colonists.
The young man changed for ever after the meeting. The speaker was Dharampal, a Gandhian, who, like his preceptor, was in ceaseless pursuit of truth, however unpopular it was. His assertion was backed by decades of painstaking study in India, England and Germany. But his lonely voice was lost in the stentorian chorus dismissing caste as total evil.
In the absence of rigorous, home-grown intellectual work, the contemporary Indian leadership, too, conveniently approved the received western scholarship on India. But decades after he spoke, is Dharampal proving right after all? Read on.

Caste as social capital - Business Line - The Hindu Business Line : Mobile Edition

Dharampal's views have been discussed here in the past. For all his glorification of pre-British India and the great harm caused to India's glory by the British, Dharam Pal's family emigrated to the very same Britain long before his demise. What an irony!! A man who could not even convince his immediate family trying to lecture to the whole population!

Shri Gurumurthy is a well-known hindutva proponent and his camouflage here is for all to see.

According to Economic Census of India (2005) which covered 42 million non-farming enterprises employing 99 million people, the OBCs owned 43.5 per cent of all enterprises, as against their share of 41 per cent in total population; Scheduled Castes (SCs) owned 9.8 per cent of all enterprises, against their population of 16.4 per cent; Scheduled Tribes (STs) owned 3.7 per cent against their population of 7.7 per cent.

65.1% of population own 57% of NFE, whereas the forward castes forming
34.9% of the population own 43% of all the NFEs.

More, both the diamond cutting and the hosiery run because the labour comprises of people from all castes. If the labour were limited on caste lines both would have floundered long ago. So, what Gurunurthy advocates is ownership of capital on caste lines. Will this go along with the ideal of a secular, casteless society?

 

[palindrome]

I used 'Hinduism' to denote the practice (did not want to use the often used term, 'Sanatana Dharma'), because I think that the caste lines were clear even in pre Gupta period. Rg Veda has clearly defined Samhitas as well as Yajur. All of Karma Kanda is nothing but describing the sacerdotal duties of the brahmins. They were supposed to be performed by the then brahmins.

Sir, first, wud like to say, am not involved in your discussion with sangom sir. Am writing this part, for just one reason -- the use of the word 'Hinduism'.

The word ''Sanatana Dharma'' is a self-appellation used by followers of Smritis (smartas?) to indicate their dharma shastra laws are ever eternal (add to it, god-given, divine, etc). AFAIK, the word Sanatana Dharma is not present in any sanskrit scriptures. I suspect the word is a recently created one, made popular by the hindutva lobby.

The word ''hindu'' is also not present in any scriptures. The persians used the word ''hindu'' to denote people on the other side of the sindhu or indus river. The term did not indicate a religion. But some claim the Brihaspati Agama says this:
हिमालयं समारभ्य यावदिंदुसरोवरम्|
तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिंदुस्थानं प्रचक्ष्यते||
The land created by the gods which stretched from the Himalayas to the Indu ocean is Hindustan.

As you are aware the subcontinent was full of diverse kingdoms of various religions and cultures. The southern part of India was predominantly Jain, Buddhist, Shramana or Tantric; which later gave way to brahmanism (brahmanical religion of fire sacrifices to vedic gods, and the dharmashastra laws). But it was still different kingdoms, of different cultures.

The British conquered, unified kingdoms and created the country we call India today. Then how can the Brihaspati Agama claim there is a देशं (country) called Hindustan? Unless, this was created (by RSS?) in recent times, and inserted into an agama (i also have doubts why agamas were interpolated or interfered with, however, i shall not elaborate on that here).

If caste lines indicate 'Hinduism', then am sorry to say it is not correct. Caste (or occupation groups) existed long before what we call hinduism today. Caste is much older than any social structure we know of. It cannot be linked to any religion; though religion (religious laws) were imposed on caste structures through a Varna vyavastha (class system).

You also mention samhitas. Kindly note, samhitas are merely compositions on diverse things. At most they only indicate primitive fire rituals. Even the Srilankan Veddas perform primitive fire rituals so do tribes in Venezuela and various parts of the world; with some chants, and sometimes with the use of local hallucinogens (they claim to see and talk to spirits).

The Brahmanas (compositions) are a much later development; wherein very elaborate fire rituals (yagnas) were developed (new hymns were composed in the brahmanas whilst also borrowing hymns from samhitas to aid the performance of a yagna). This post has some details. So you see the genesis of karma kanda is different from the samhita period.

Also sir, the office of the brahmanas also had a lot to do with self-preservation. There was nothing secular about it. This self-preservation is seen in today's quota system too. Those who got it, do not want to leave it. There is nothing secular about it too.

Sir, you also seem to think only after the British arrived, Brahmins took to other jobs. Since the term 'Brahmin' is a very generic one, am not sure which type of brahmins you refer to. Afaik, as per puranas and vamsavalis, and from historical records of various copper plates, inscriptions, etc; many ruling clans claimed to be brahmins.

 

[KRS]

palindrome,

The only reason I used the word 'Hinduism' (I am well aware of it's origins), because I personally do not like the word 'Brahminism'. The reason for this is, this particular word is used to attack a particular present communities' culture.

All your history is correct - which I have acknowledged before. Indian history, especially when it comes to culture/religion is very chequered. I was just talking about the priestly class of 'Hinduism'. From the beginning, whether it was the Samhitas or the later Brahmanas, there was a sacerdotal element - because the language was privileged to only a select few.

I don't know when the vedic religion was brought to the south of Vindyas, but surely it came at a point in time. When it came, it also brought with it the sacerdotal element of 'Hinduism'.

I used to think that 'Varnas' and 'Castes' were different. May be they are - I draw the line, when the movements between the Varnas stopped and became a birth right. I don't know when this happened, but more importantly, it does not matter. We are looking at the results today.

Yes, the 'Brahmin' class did practice other vocations. It was, in my opinion, on an exception basis. The difference was, when the British recruited the natives for administrative positions, a whole scale revolution happened in the Brahmin community and they left their agraharams to pursue the secular avocations on a mass level. This is what I meant.

My definition of 'humanism' can perhaps explain your other comments.

Regards,
KRS

Sir, first, wud like to say, am not involved in your discussion with sangom sir. Am writing this part, for just one reason -- the use of the word 'Hinduism'.

The word ''Sanatana Dharma'' is a self-appellation used by followers of Smritis (smartas?) to indicate their dharma shastra laws are ever eternal (add to it, god-given, divine, etc). AFAIK, the word Sanatana Dharma is not present in any sanskrit scriptures. I suspect the word is a recently created one, made popular by the hindutva lobby.

The word ''hindu'' is also not present in any scriptures. The persians used the word ''hindu'' to denote people on the other side of the sindhu or indus river. The term did not indicate a religion. But some claim the Brihaspati Agama says this:
हिमालयं समारभ्य यावदिंदुसरोवरम्|
तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिंदुस्थानं प्रचक्ष्यते||
The land created by the gods which stretched from the Himalayas to the Indu ocean is Hindustan.

As you are aware the subcontinent was full of diverse kingdoms of various religions and cultures. The southern part of India was predominantly Jain, Buddhist, Shramana or Tantric; which later gave way to brahmanism (brahmanical religion of fire sacrifices to vedic gods, and the dharmashastra laws). But it was still different kingdoms, of different cultures.

The British conquered, unified kingdoms and created the country we call India today. Then how can the Brihaspati Agama claim there is a देशं (country) called Hindustan? Unless, this was created (by RSS?) in recent times, and inserted into an agama (i also have doubts why agamas were interpolated or interfered with, however, i shall not elaborate on that here).

If caste lines indicate 'Hinduism', then am sorry to say it is not correct. Caste (or occupation groups) existed long before what we call hinduism today. Caste is much older than any social structure we know of. It cannot be linked to any religion; though religion (religious laws) were imposed on caste structures through a Varna vyavastha (class system).

You also mention samhitas. Kindly note, samhitas are merely compositions on diverse things. At most they only indicate primitive fire rituals. Even the Srilankan Veddas perform primitive fire rituals so do tribes in Venezuela and various parts of the world; with some chants, and sometimes with the use of local hallucinogens (they claim to see and talk to spirits).

The Brahmanas (compositions) are a much later development; wherein very elaborate fire rituals (yagnas) were developed (new hymns were composed in the brahmanas whilst also borrowing hymns from samhitas to aid the performance of a yagna). This post has some details. So you see the genesis of karma kanda is different from the samhita period.

Also sir, the office of the brahmanas also had a lot to do with self-preservation. There was nothing secular about it. This self-preservation is seen in today's quota system too. Those who got it, do not want to leave it. There is nothing secular about it too.

Sir, you also seem to think only after the British arrived, Brahmins took to other jobs. Since the term 'Brahmin' is a very generic one, am not sure which type of brahmins you refer to. Afaik, as per puranas and vamsavalis, and from historical records of various copper plates, inscriptions, etc; many ruling clans claimed to be brahmins.

 

[palindrome]

palindrome,

The only reason I used the word 'Hinduism' (I am well aware of it's origins), because I personally do not like the word 'Brahminism'. The reason for this is, this particular word is used to attack a particular present communities' culture.

The word 'Brahmanism' and 'Neo-Brahmanism' is used in some books and the context varies. So, maybe it is better to use the word "Vedic Religion" to indicate those who follow the brahmanas (texts) (though again this can get debatable), and Tantrism or "Agamic religion" to indicate temple priests who follow agamas.

I was just talking about the priestly class of 'Hinduism'.

But sir, there was no such thing as one priestly class. There were many religions, such as a pashupata religion, pancaratra religion, and each had their priests.

From the beginning, whether it was the Samhitas or the later Brahmanas, there was a sacerdotal element - because the language was privileged to only a select few.

I don't think so sir. Native agamic priests could be elevated into the indo-aryan language and cultural fold. Priests and warriors elevating each other as Brahmans and Kshatriyas was not uncommon. Like the case of boyas folks could learn and scribe themselves into the language too.

I don't know when the vedic religion was brought to the south of Vindyas, but surely it came at a point in time. When it came, it also brought with it the sacerdotal element of 'Hinduism'.

I fail to understand 'Hinduism' indicates which religion? Vedic religion? If so, i would agree it came into the south at some point of time since the brahmanas (texts or compositions) were created in the domain of kuru-panchalas. If you meant the agamic religion, i must remind you various renunciate sects, shramana cultures, parpanna temple priests, temples (starting from cave temples), already existed in the south during sangam period (before vedic religion made its entry).

Yes, the 'Brahmin' class did practice other vocations. It was, in my opinion, on an exception basis. The difference was, when the British recruited the natives for administrative positions, a whole scale revolution happened in the Brahmin community and they left their agraharams to pursue the secular avocations on a mass level. This is what I meant.

Am not sure it was an exception. Whether Pallavas, Cholas, certain clans of Rajputs, all these made claims of being brahmins. Even today, the niyogis, bhumihars, mohyals, chitpavans, and such likes have no history of being purohits of vedic religion or temple priests of agamic religion; in the past. Its an other matter they gained access to such positions later. Lets put it this way. After becoming a president, the head of a state or a king, would one want to call himself a slave or a trader (although he arose from commoners of warring tribes)? If a king followed the "vedic religion", and was the authority for administration, naturally he is the law. He being such an authority, wud naturally claim to be a brahmin.

 

[sarang]

Who wants a secular and casteless society. The government has to be secular in letter and spirit (which it does not); all castes have right to exist and prosper. Revisit the constitution.

An MBA application form of a well known university demnds the following certificates to be enclosed in addition to the usual pass certificate and mark list.
1. Caste certificate
2. Cast validity cetificate
3. Non-creamy layer certificate.

Where is the castless society?
Varna kula dharma is the individual's choice and sanctified by tradition.
You must read Gurumurthy again and again to understand the implied and explicit import of the article and hindu joint ownership system.

Will this go along with the ideal of a secular, casteless society?

 

[palindrome]

Varna kula dharma is the individual's choice and sanctified by tradition.

Individual's choice? Wow! So why does Manusmriti ask for a shudra baby's name to express something contemptible? Why does Manusmriti ask for a shudra to be kept terrorized into slavery? Who in varna system was allowed to convert from shudra into brahmin, due to his individual choice?

 

[samarapungavan]

Shri TBS,

ஸ்ரீமதே ராமானுஜாய நம:



இரு கலையாரும், ஸ்வாமி ஸ்ரீமத் ராமானுஜரை நித்யம் திருவாராதன க்ரமத்தில், அவருடைய தனியனை சேவித்து சாற்றுமுறை செய்கிறார்கள்.
இது க்ருஹங்களிலும், ஆலயங்களிலும் தினமும் நடக்கிறது. மேலும் ராமானுஜ நூற்றந்தாதி, யதிராஜ ஸப்ததி முதலியவையும் அனுஸந்தானம் செய்யபடுகிறது.

கீழே அவருடைய தனியன்:

பெரிய ஜீயர் அருளியது
ஸர்வதேச தஸாகாலே ஷவவ்யாஹத பராக்ரமா
ராமானுஜார்ய திவ்யாஞ்ஞா வர்ததாம் அபிவர்த்தாம்

கந்தாடையாண்டான் அருளியது
ராமானுஜார்ய திவ்யாஞ்ஞா ப்ரதிவாஸரம் உஜ்வலா
திகந்தவ்யாபினி பூயாத் ஸாஹி லோக ஹிதைஷிணீ

 

[samarapungavan]

ஸ்வாமி ஸ்ரீமத் ராமானுஜrrர், ஸ்ரீவைஷ்ணவ குருபரம்பரையில் நடு நாயகமான ரத்தினம். அவருடைய திருமுடி ஸம்பந்தத்தாலே அவருக்கு முன் உள்ள ஆசார்யர்களும், அவருடைய திருவடி ஸம்பந்தத்தாலே பின் வந்த ஆசார்யர்களுக்கும் பெருமை உடைத்து.
ஸ்ரீவைஷ்ணவ குருபரம்பரை லக்ஷ்மீ நாதனிடமிருந்தே தொடங்குகிறது.
பொது தனியன்
லக்ஷ்மீ நாத ஸமாரம்பாம் நாத யாமுன மத்யமாம்
அஸ்மதாசார்ய பர்யந்தாம் வந்தே குரு பரம்பராம்

 

[samarapungavan]

ஸ்ரீ நாதமுனி மற்றும் ஸ்ரீயாமுன முனி, குருபரம்பரையில் மத்தியில் இருப்பவர்கள்.

ஸ்ரீயாமுன முனி ஸ்ரீ நாதமுனிகளின் பேரன். ஸ்ரீ ஆளவந்தார்
என்றும் ஸம்ப்ரதாயத்தில் ப்ரஸித்தம். இவரின் திருவுள்ளத்தில் இருந்த மூன்று அபிலாஷைகளை ஸ்ரீமத் ராமானுஜrrர் பூர்த்தி செய்தார். ஆழ்வார்கள் காட்டித்தந்த வழியில் ப்ரஹ்மஸூத்ரத்திற்கு (போதாயன க்ரந்தத்திலும் உள்ளபடி) ஸ்ரீபாஷ்யம் அருளல், தன்னுடைய சிஷ்யரான கூரத்தாழ்வான் திருக்குமாரர்களை கொண்டு வ்யாஸ பராசர மஹரிஷிகளுக்கு க்ருதக்ஞதை செய்தல், திருகுருகைபிள்ளான் மூலம் நாலாயிர திவ்ய ப்ரபந்தத்திற்கு வ்யாக்யானம் செய்தல் என்பவை.


மேலும், பூலோகத்தில், ஸ்ரீவைஷ்ணவ குருபரம்பரையில் முதல் ஆசார்ய ஸ்தானம் வஹிப்பவர் ஸ்வாமி நம்மாழ்வார். இவர் ஆசார்ய கோஷ்ட்டியிலும், ஆழ்வார் கோஷ்ட்டியிலும் உள்ளவர்.

ஸ்ரீவைஷ்ணவ சம்ப்ரதாயம் உபய வேதாந்த சம்ப்ரதாயம் எனப்படுகிறது. த்ராவிட வேதமும்(4000), சாக்ஷாத் வேதமும் கூடியதான இரண்டும்.

 

[samarapungavan]

ஸ்ரீவைஷ்ணவ குருபரம்பரை

1. ஸ்ரீமந்நாராயணன்

2. ஸ்ரீதேவி

3. விஷ்வக்சேனர்

4. ஸ்வாமி நம்மாழ்வார் என்னும் சடகோபன்

5. ஸ்ரீநாதமுனிகள்

6. புண்டரீகாக்ஷர்

7. ராமமிஸ்ரர்

8. யாமுனாசார்யர் என்கின்ற ஸ்ரீ ஆளவந்தார்

9. மஹாபூர்னர்(பெரிய நம்பிகள்)

10. ஸ்ரீமத் ராமானுஜrrர்

 

[samarapungavan]

ஸ்ரீமத் ராமானுஜrrர் தன்னுடைய பூர்வாசார்யர்களிடமிருந்து பெற்ற ஞானத்தை 74 ஸிம்ஹாஸனாதிபதிகள் மூலம் விரிவடைய செய்தார்.
ஸ்ரீநாதமுனிகள் தோன்றிய காட்டுமன்னார் கோவிலில் உள்ள வீரநாராயணத்தான் ஏரி(வீராணம் ஏரி) 74 கணவாய்களை கொண்டது. ஸ்ரீநாதமுனிகள் என்னும் ஆசார்யர் மூலம், ஸ்ரீமத் ராமானுஜrrர் என்ற ஏரிக்கு இந்த பெருவெள்ளம்(ஞானம்) வந்து அடைந்தது. இந்த ஞானத்தை ஸ்ரீமத் ராமானுஜrrர் 74 ஸிம்ஹாஸனாதிபதிகள் மூலம் விரிவடைய செய்தார்.
இந்த 74 ஸிம்ஹாஸனாதிபதிகளில், நடாதூர் ஆழ்வான் வழி வந்தவர் ஸ்வாமி தேசிகன்.அதே போல் ஸ்ரீ எம்பார் வழி வந்தவர் ஸ்வாமி மணவாள மாமுனிகள்.
விரிவிக்கு அஞ்சி 74 சிம்ஹாசனாதிபதிகளை பட்டியலிடாம்ல் விட்டோம்.

தாஸன் ஸமரபுங்கவன்

 

[KRS]

Okay, palindrome.

I posted my views on a class/caste of people who performed the sacerdotal duties as prescribed by whatever religions that now are called generally as 'Hinduism', and whose main job was to study the Vedas, and keep dharma as per their interpretation of the scriptures, and who for a layman like me came to be understood as 'Brahmins' and who all lived in one of our thousands of villages, supporting the vedic religious activities of that place.

To my knowledge, these folks (including my forefathers) who lived as such in such villages left the place once they got secular education en masse, to pursue other secular avocations. I am talking about this group, because when folks say 'Brahminism' (and other words such as 'neo' etc.,) the lay people like me are referring to this group. I suspect, most in this Forum understand it this way.

Whether who became a 'Brahmin', I am talking about this group who studied Sanskrit and the Vedas and took part in whatever ceremonies that were held to support the religion.

I am not talking about any other religion that did not require any sacerdotal role or did not have this class/caste, but now comes under the general name of 'Hinduism'.

If this is your issue, please label the group, as you say as 'the people of Vedic religion who had the sacerdotal duties'.

If you have any scholarly information that shows clearly that there were such 'Brahmins', who before the British came, were involved in other professions as you describe, in substantial numbers, please post that. Because, that would be interesting for me and I may have to change my views on who the 'Brahmins' were based on such a study.

Hope this clears.

The word 'Brahmanism' and 'Neo-Brahmanism' is used in some books and the context varies. So, maybe it is better to use the word "Vedic Religion" to indicate those who follow the brahmanas (texts) (though again this can get debatable), and Tantrism or "Agamic religion" to indicate temple priests who follow agamas.


But sir, there was no such thing as one priestly class. There were many religions, such as a pashupata religion, pancaratra religion, and each had their priests.

I don't think so sir. Native agamic priests could be elevated into the indo-aryan language and cultural fold. Priests and warriors elevating each other as Brahmans and Kshatriyas was not uncommon. Like the case of boyas folks could learn and scribe themselves into the language too.


I fail to understand 'Hinduism' indicates which religion? Vedic religion? If so, i would agree it came into the south at some point of time since the brahmanas (texts or compositions) were created in the domain of kuru-panchalas. If you meant the agamic religion, i must remind you various renunciate sects, shramana cultures, parpanna temple priests, temples (starting from cave temples), already existed in the south during sangam period (before vedic religion made its entry).

Am not sure it was an exception. Whether Pallavas, Cholas, certain clans of Rajputs, all these made claims of being brahmins. Even today, the niyogis, bhumihars, mohyals, chitpavans, and such likes have no history of being purohits of vedic religion or temple priests of agamic religion; in the past. Its an other matter they gained access to such positions later. Lets put it this way. After becoming a president, the head of a state or a king, would one want to call himself a slave or a trader (although he arose from commoners of warring tribes)? If a king followed the "vedic religion", and was the authority for administration, naturally he is the law. He being such an authority, wud naturally claim to be a brahmin.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Who wants a secular and casteless society.

An MBA application form of a well known university demnds the following certificates to be enclosed in addition to the usual pass certificate and mark list.
1. Caste certificate
2. Cast validity cetificate
3. Non-creamy layer certificate.

Where is the castless society?

You are correct. The Indian constitution does not bar castes but only talks about non-discrimination based on caste/race/religion/gender etc.

The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them

Even that was thrown to the winds long time back ever since the first amendment. Now the government practices caste and religious discrimination on all and sundry things with non-brahmins, hindus or otherwise, being the beneficiaries. In fact, the modern day govt and constitution serves as proof that a secular or an irreligious govt does not ipso facto mean a non-discriminating govt. This also could explain why people belonging to religions such as buddhism or sikhism today deny any relationship with hinduism because there are concrete material benefits associated with being a religious minority, something that is readily available to christians or muslims, for example. They do not want to be left behind.

The ideal of a secular, casteless society is only an illusion.

 

[prasad1]

You are correct. The Indian constitution does not bar castes but only talks about non-discrimination based on caste/race/religion/gender etc.



Even that was thrown to the winds long time back ever since the first amendment. Now the government practices caste and religious discrimination on all and sundry things with non-brahmins, hindus or otherwise, being the beneficiaries. In fact, the modern day govt and constitution serves as proof that a secular or an irreligious govt does not ipso facto mean a non-discriminating govt. This also could explain why people belonging to religions such as buddhism or sikhism today deny any relationship with hinduism because there are concrete material benefits associated with being a religious minority, something that is readily available to christians or muslims, for example. They do not want to be left behind.

The ideal of a secular, casteless society is only an illusion.

Yes sir you are right, sadly we missed the Secular society somewhere.

 

[zebra16]

The ideal of a secular, casteless society is only an illusion.

An Indian illusion !!!!!

 

[palindrome]

Okay, palindrome.

I posted my views on a class/caste of people who performed the sacerdotal duties as prescribed by whatever religions that now are called generally as 'Hinduism', and whose main job was to study the Vedas, and keep dharma as per their interpretation of the scriptures, and who for a layman like me came to be understood as 'Brahmins' and who all lived in one of our thousands of villages, supporting the vedic religious activities of that place.

To my knowledge, these folks (including my forefathers) who lived as such in such villages left the place once they got secular education en masse, to pursue other secular avocations. I am talking about this group, because when folks say 'Brahminism' (and other words such as 'neo' etc.,) the lay people like me are referring to this group. I suspect, most in this Forum understand it this way.

Whether who became a 'Brahmin', I am talking about this group who studied Sanskrit and the Vedas and took part in whatever ceremonies that were held to support the religion.

I am not talking about any other religion that did not require any sacerdotal role or did not have this class/caste, but now comes under the general name of 'Hinduism'.

If this is your issue, please label the group, as you say as 'the people of Vedic religion who had the sacerdotal duties'.

If you have any scholarly information that shows clearly that there were such 'Brahmins', who before the British came, were involved in other professions as you describe, in substantial numbers, please post that. Because, that would be interesting for me and I may have to change my views on who the 'Brahmins' were based on such a study.

Hope this clears.

Sir, I have no idea about your forefathers. I also do not know what forum members assume or presume his/her forefathers were. So, i shall skip that part.

All the way from 2010, i have been writing about various traditions, and various people who claimed of themselves as brahmins. If i remember right, this was one of the early posts on the point. There are also various posts on kshatropeta brahmanas, boyas, pallavas, cholas, pratiharas, in various threads.

I do not think all priests studied vedas or interpreted dharma. Till date, the jangams, adi saivas, shivacharyas, for example do not study vedas. Too many belief systems, including tantrism, arising out of tribal faith forms, have existed all over the subcontinent (these had nothing to do with vedic, though some agamas became vaidika-agamas whilst the rest remained avaidika-agamas). The worship landscape in old times can be discerned here.

 

[palindrome]

This also could explain why people belonging to religions such as buddhism or sikhism today deny any relationship with hinduism because there are concrete material benefits associated with being a religious minority, something that is readily available to christians or muslims, for example.

Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs have been denying links with 'hindus' since colonial period (long before minority benefits existed). Why should anyone accept a relationship when none existed in the first place.

The ideal of a secular, casteless society is only an illusion.

In matter of religion, there is nothing called secular.

 

[KRS]

palindrome,

When I have said, 'forefathers', I am talking about the 6 generation or so that I know about MY family. I do not claim any purity of blood or otherwise. I only know what they did in our traditional village.

Regarding your other citations of all other traditions, I have already said, I believe that they exist/existed. Never denied anything.

But I have pointedly narrowed my focus in to one group. Sorry, other than this, I don't know what else do you want me to do? Don't call these people 'Brahmins'? These people exist today in reality, represented by a community, generally called 'Brahmins'.

Regards,
KRS

Sir, I have no idea about your forefathers. I also do not know what forum members assume or presume his/her forefathers were. So, i shall skip that part.

All the way from 2010, i have been writing about various traditions, and various people who claimed of themselves as brahmins. If i remember right, this was one of the early posts on the point. There are also various posts on kshatropeta brahmanas, boyas, pallavas, cholas, pratiharas, in various threads.

I do not think all priests studied vedas or interpreted dharma. Till date, the jangams, adi saivas, shivacharyas, for example do not study vedas. Too many belief systems, including tantrism, arising out of tribal faith forms, have existed all over the subcontinent (these had nothing to do with vedic, though some agamas became vaidika-agamas whilst the rest remained avaidika-agamas). The worship landscape in old times can be discerned here.

 

[sarang]

I am only reminded of the face to face idea exchange programme between Sri Sri Ravishankar and Dr. Zahir naik. Whenever ravishankar opens his mouth to quote something, naik will silence him with his own version of obscenities and demand that sri sri to prove otherwise. Ravishankar must be praised for not quoting anything from islamic scriptures that will show that religion in a bad light. He was always his smiling self, but couldn't insert anything positive in the half hour programme. He later on explained to his devotees what that exchange was all about. All available in u tube.

Now naik's peace tv and his print magazine are banned in india. Brahmins are a patient lot, and will not normally fight back, but expect divine intervention in some form. EVR's vituperative campaigns (poonalai aru, mudiya vettu, silayai udai) have all met their due samadhi. His DMK and AIDMK heirs have immense respect for brahmins in private and social life, but in political posturing and in sharing the loot are compelled to see brahmins as adversaries. If reservation is done away with, all will become equal in the eyes of all.

Individual's choice? Wow! So why does Manusmriti ask for a shudra baby's name to express something contemptible? Why does Manusmriti ask for a shudra to be kept terrorized into slavery? Who in varna system was allowed to convert from shudra into brahmin, due to his individual choice?

 

[sarang]

Only hindus are and can be secular in the right and true sens of the word.

Last month in south korea, a buddhist temple was vandalised. 90% of the south koreans were converted in a period of 30 years. In US buddha adherents are dropping alarmingly to christianity.

Hindus have virtually vanished in pakistan and bangladesh and afganistan, and now decreasing in nepal and west bengal.

Because the word secularism has lost its sheen, the new word used by our pseudo secularists is - inclusive growth - again another slogan learnt from foreign friends. They will never say - growth for all, but growth for this community, this caste, this religion, this minority.

Yes sir you are right, sadly we missed the Secular society somewhere.