British might have anglicised the word brahmin to brahminism or applied a 'ism' to give the meaning of this as a seperate movement or something like that. But the real problem is brahmins failed to explain the true meaning of brahminism to british, they should have said, there is no such thing as brahminism or even if there is, it is open to all, and everyone is equal in terms of brahminism, because, brahman, which is the essence of brahminism, means 'one who is in pursuit of knowledge and righteousness', and one who is in that pursuit is a brahman, but then, brahmin given a new identity and a status, that is above all non-brahmins and charecterized as a superior being comparable to the aryans like british, failed to see the real truth (which basically demotes them as brahmins, because they inspite of their goal in seeking knowledge) and succumbed to the divisive tactics of british. But regardless, brahmins already monopolized hinduism for their own means, for quite a long time, and the british, characterization was just additional fuel.
Coming to your truth aspect as in it cannot be destroyed;
The brahminism cannot be destroyed because it imitates a function, like purohit, similarly engineering is a function, or being doctor as called by british (or maruthuvar in tamil) is also TRUTH! as per your logic.
Brahmin is a tag not a truth!, Devar is a tag not a truth!, Buniya is a tag not a truth!. These originated through something called jati, which originally stemmed through the function/task/role (however you want to call it) that everyone did initially and as time passed everything got associated with birth as though you carry something with you physically!.
pattuk said:
The explanation is this The word Brahminisim was created by British (called Pomy)
Even before that when you look at the westernised buddist texts would say that buddha challenged the authority of brahmisim.
Even if you take the two ways like
a) it is totally true, buddha was not successfull in his mission. Because many of the "Sangas" were populated with brahmins and they continued with what they wanted to do.
b) if it is not true then the brahmin, still the way the buddhism entered the the religious platform was through an atheist way.
Anyway their temproray sucess were not long because they entered politics .
Thus the brahminhood is a way of life, in this you try to be a role model and impress on your fellow being to become the same. It is the way every one should aim to. Even if the there is non brahmin archakar in temple he will become a brahmin at least. There is no guarantee that he will not repeat the same situation.
Another classical example would be few sri vaishanvas, they were not brahmins, but they were inducted into brahminhood by Sri Ramanuja. They call thems selves as brahmins. Still their root is a non brahmins root. It will be difficult to differenciate between themselves unless they say so. Obvivously they wouldn't proclaim in public.
Therefore the brahminism cannot be destroyed as everyone comes to the basic function of a brahmins (ie a prohitha - in temple an archakar) would show the same properties of the presently adjudged as brahmins qualities.
Hope I have explained my stance.
