• 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.

Vedic God Varuna in Oldest Tamil Book

Status
Not open for further replies.

palindrome

Active member
கால பைரவன்;196708 said:
Dear Doc, I am disappointed with your equivocation here. Don't you see the temper of the posts of some people? It is a lie when they say they they are against ideology and not against brahmins. The fact is, they do not differentiate at all. There is a specific reason why they keep using casteism and brahminism interchangeably and also add the word brahmin whenever they point to varna or caste system. If a member dares to present contrarian view, they call it shoddy. Tell me, what qualification do these members have to call other member's research shoddy? This is all done to corner the brahmins, impose a guilt-trip on them, and justify whatever discrimination that is being perpetrated against them. Do you want us to sit still and take in all the insults?
Reg a sentence in bold: Since you seem to be an omniscient sorta clairvoyant, kindly explain how and why you think it is a lie.

Underlined a point. In fact, it is you who does not know to differentiate at all. You assume anything against brahmanism (put precisely, smartism) is against you as a person. Where do you get that identification from?

What is the "discrimination" being perpetrated on 'brahmins'? Reservations? If you think so, its nothing but resentment. Where does it come from? And guilt-trip really?

Casteism is brahmanism; whether you like it or not. History is not going to change; even if hindutva lobby rewrites textbooks as they try to do anyways.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Casteism is brahmanism; whether you like it or not.


Dear Palindrome,

I think Casteism is not Brahminism but it is "Delusionism"

Yesterday I was checking out a Non Brahmim caste Seva Samaj of Tamil Nadu which surprisingly has its Headoffice in Gujarat!.

LOL! It was scary to listen to some of their mission and vision on Youtube.

Firstly they sounded as if they think they are some warrior descended from heaven with the background voice giving the narration had a Shivaji Ganesan Veera Paandi Kattabomman movie Style of speaking.

It was really scary yaar...I dread to imagine if I had left a comment in their comment column saying "hey guys...get a hold of yourselves..what is this over the limit dialogue?"

So I think this casteism is not merely Brahminisim alone...It is a virus.

Like World War Z (Brad Pitts's latest movie)... As Indians we have a World War C!

Wonder who will be the hero to find the vaccine for this virus??LOL

Z pronounced as Zee.
C=Casteism.
 
Last edited:
Reg a sentence in bold: Since you seem to be an omniscient sorta clairvoyant, kindly explain how and why you think it is a lie.
The ideology that is claimed to be opposed here is neither practiced only by a brahmin nor it can be said that a brahmin ipso-facto practices it. Therefore calling this ideology "brahminism" is nothing but a reflection of hatred towards brahmins.

palindrome said:
Underlined a point. In fact, it is you who does not know to differentiate at all. You assume anything against brahmanism (put precisely, smartism) is against you as a person.

Conflating casteism as brahminism is an attack on brahmins. Anyone can raise voice against such attack! What you and your ilk are indulging in is much worse than a personal attack.

palindrome said:
What is the "discrimination" being perpetrated on 'brahmins'? Reservations? If you think so, its nothing but resentment.

Reservation based on caste is by definition discrimination. It is not what I think. It is what it is. It is you who resent this point of view probably because it is the truth.

palindrome said:
Casteism is brahmanism; whether you like it or not. History is not going to change;

Just because you think so does not make it the history! That is the history dravidianists want to sell.
 

palindrome

Active member
கால பைரவன்;196767 said:
The ideology that is claimed to be opposed here is neither practiced only by a brahmin nor it can be said that a brahmin ipso-facto practices it. Therefore calling this ideology "brahminism" is nothing but a reflection of hatred towards brahmins.
The social system of organizing jatis (occupation categories / castes) in a hierarchy, each represented under a varna, is a smriti bastion. Herein, smritis refer specifically to the texts of dharmashastras which smartism upholds verily as the divine (depsite the fact the dharmashastras use / endorse violence to keep people subjugated into slavery).

We also have the case of kshatropetabrahmanas (ie, 'kshatriyas' claiming to be of brahmin descent). The Manusmriti places temple priests in a lowly position (they are not designated 'brahmana' in manusmriti instead they are called 'devalaykan'). If vedic priesthood be taken into account, an adhvaryu's job was restricted to menial stuff as sacrificing animals accompanied by mantra chants, and this person was nothing more than an assitant or servant to a hotr or an atharvan. As such, it is very obvious the term 'brahmin' is a very generic one; which got applied differently to different people over time.

If Smartism claims to be a brahmin system, it is but natural to equivocate smartism to brahmanism; and to problems created by organizing castes into varnas (aka casteism). A historian or a layman who uses the term 'brahmanism' to refer to casteism, cannot hate people for their birth or caste. They are merely discussing an ideology in context to society and social science.

On the contrary, it appears, some specific people are anxious to claim of themselves as brahmins, and portray a specific image of themselves. These probably belong to the hindutva lobby or the mutt lobby.

If any individual wishes to uphold this smartism / casteism, he is obviously a social toxin who wishes to uphold a birth-based system of untouchability, class system and varna superiority (which is merely desire for social power).

Conflating casteism as brahminism is an attack on brahmins. Anyone can raise voice against such attack! What you and your ilk are indulging in is much worse than a personal attack.
Explained above. Casteism is brahmanism. It is not an attack on individuals of a particular birth or caste. Unfortunately, as said in the post above, "You assume anything against brahmanism (put precisely, smartism) is against you as a person".

The problem is with the way certain people think (they want to make it personal, they create certain identities and personal attacks for themselves). So it depends on each individual's individuality, i suppose.

Reservation based on caste is by definition discrimination. It is not what I think. It is what it is. It is you who resent this point of view probably because it is the truth.
Dharmashastras which are based on birth/varna is definite discrimination -- more so, oppression and suppression using violence (murder of meritocracy). At least in reservations, there is no violence and there is an open category for forward castes. Certainly, reservations are better than dharmashastra rules.

Just because you think so does not make it the history! That is the history dravidianists want to sell.
Oh well, casteism is brahmanism. No matter what you or me say. Historians and social scientists who deal with the origin of casteism, untouchability and social evils (such as sati) use the term brahmanism to represent casteism. Maybe a simple search like this or this will help.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

palindrome

Active member
Dear Palindrome,

I think Casteism is not Brahminism but it is "Delusionism"

Yesterday I was checking out a Non Brahmim caste Seva Samaj of Tamil Nadu which surprisingly has its Headoffice in Gujarat!.

LOL! It was scary to listen to some of their mission and vision on Youtube.

Firstly they sounded as if they think they are some warrior descended from heaven with the background voice giving the narration had a Shivaji Ganesan Veera Paandi Kattabomman movie Style of speaking.

It was really scary yaar...I dread to imagine if I had left a comment in their comment column saying "hey guys...get a hold of yourselves..what is this over the limit dialogue?"

So I think this casteism is not merely Brahminisim alone...It is a virus.

Like World War Z (Brad Pitts's latest movie)... As Indians we have a World War C!

Wonder who will be the hero to find the vaccine for this virus??LOL

Z pronounced as Zee.
C=Casteism.
Reminds me of a telugu group which zealously propagated caste ("pride in caste") as a form of "preserving hinduism". Later I found some of these belonged to a particular organization which in turn is linked to a hindutva outfit.

To drum up zeal for caste does not profit the common man. In everyday life who cares for caste. But politicians wud like us to keep caste. The hindutva lobby wud like us to believe hinduism is under attack. When infact hinduism is very much alive and doing very well.

The only thing colonial period people rejected was the varna system. The varna system went spiralling downwards during that time; and has not recovered still. One just has to read the writings of Sangh leaders to understand their obsession with propagating varna (a)dharma thru a political (hindutva) platform.

Propagating caste zeal helps only politicians these days. I really won't be surprised if someone from that samaj has political or hindutva links.

As long as aryanists and dravidianists exist, india is doomed.
 

palindrome

Active member
Kalabhairava,

You did not address this question:

Underlined a point. In fact, it is you who does not know to differentiate at all. You assume anything against brahmanism (put precisely, smartism) is against you as a person. Where do you get that identification from?
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Reminds me of a telugu group which zealously propagated caste ("pride in caste") as a form of "preserving hinduism". Later I found some of these belonged to a particular organization which in turn is linked to a hindutva outfit.

To drum up zeal for caste does not profit the common man. In everyday life who cares for caste. But politicians wud like us to keep caste. The hindutva lobby wud like us to believe hinduism is under attack. When infact hinduism is very much alive and doing very well.

The only thing colonial period people rejected was the varna system. The varna system went spiralling downwards during that time; and has not recovered still. One just has to read the writings of Sangh leaders to understand their obsession with propagating varna (a)dharma thru a political (hindutva) platform.

Propagating caste zeal helps only politicians these days. I really won't be surprised if someone from that samaj has political or hindutva links.

As long as aryanists and dravidianists exist, india is doomed.

Dear Palindrome,

I went back to that page just to leave some comment but all comments are blocked now!LOL

So I could not tell them "get a hold of yourselves guys! what is this over the limit dialogue"
 

palindrome

Active member
Dear Palindrome,

I went back to that page just to leave some comment but all comments are blocked now!LOL

So I could not tell them "get a hold of yourselves guys! what is this over the limit dialogue"
There are some viruses who thrive on dividing the country based on religion, caste, creed, gender, strata.

It is not just media, in action too there are culprits who go as far as hoisting a pakistani flag to fester hate-mongering. Link: Navigation News | Frontline
 
Ref post # 24: Merely by throwing out terms, one may not fool anyone. The social system of organizing jatis is just that - a social system. The rules with which the social system is governed are the laws of the society. Just because some of these rules are written in religious texts, they do not become religious laws. This is not unique to Hinduism. Laws that governed the day-to-day lives of members of a society, are reflected in the scriptures of other major religions too including Christianity and Islam. Historians who researched these religions do not call them religious laws. Neither do they blame religion or the clergy for what was imposed by the society. If anything religious rules are seldom strictly followed, certainly not as strictly as the societal laws. The jatis were not merely occupational categories - membership to a jati was birth-based only and this precedes the varna system. The fact that birth-based caste system continues till today, much after the collapse of the varna system, is proof enough. Varna kind of organizing occupations is not a unique system as is claimed here. I had already pointed out tamil kingdom itself had a class division, with each division a conglomeration of occupational categories only. Guild societies too existed in many parts of the world. Slavery/violence are not products of religion. That is simply a false claim. Neighboring kingdoms were constantly at war with each other and people who lost were enslaved by the victors. The enslaved groups were obviously forced to do occupations serving the victors. When the societies grew, it became necessary to increase food production at a rapid rate and enslaved people were deployed to work in the fields. With the slaves having a lowly status in the society, and a vast majority of them working in the fields, slowly that occupation was moved down the hierarchy. Farming was classified as vaisya duty only in the beginning.

Casteism is not brahminism. That is just prejudiced thinking.
 

sangom

Well-known member
The social system of organizing jatis (occupation categories / castes) in a hierarchy, each represented under a varna, is a smriti bastion. Herein, smritis refer specifically to the texts of dharmashastras which smartism uphold verily as the divine (depsite the fact the dharmashastras use / endorse violence to keep people subjugated into slavery). We also have the case of kshatropetabrahmanas (ie, 'kshatriyas' claiming to be of brahmin descent). The Manusmriti places temple priests also in a lowly position. As such, it is very obvious the term 'brahmin' is a very generic one.

My knowledge is only minimal but which Dharmasastra text/s lay down the various castes under each of the four original varnas? To the best of my knowledge the only book of this type is some SAnkarasmriti*** which was accepted in Kerala by the Nambudiris and all other people. But there is enough evidence through official census reports that under each caste (like Nair, Ezhava, Pulaya, KammALan, etc.,) more and more sub-groups originated from within the original castes themselves and within such sub-groups there was untouchability, need to keep distances for the sake of (bodily/ritual) purity, and if this was violated severe penances had to be made. It therefore appears to me that this tendency to form kind of "guilds" and to consider themselves ritually purer than some other groups had been a tendency within the Indian people.

I do subscribe to the Aryan-Dravidian concepts and I feel that the Aryans on coming into this sub-continent, found very many indigenous tribes who were mutually inimical with one another, and the Aryans put these various mutually warring tribal groups under four large labels to which they were possibly accustomed since the Iranian society also had a four-fold classification.

The blame for making castes has however been put on the heads of brahmins because they, as the only group capable of making slokas, sutras, orally memorized texts, etc., put down certain things without giving the whole background.

At the beginning of the 20th. century, the NE areas had very many tribes who were constantly at war with each other and the severed head of an enemy tribal male was a prized possession and a status symbol. Perhaps one can find this same feelings even today among the Nagas of Nagaland, I believe.

In any case more unbiased research needs to be done about caste system in India as distinguished from the four-varnas system, I think.

Note:
*** I find it is not even "SAnkarasmriti" which lays down the castes of Kerala but a book called "jAtinirNayaM" of unknown authorship dated 16th. century A.D. (Ref: http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/നമ്പൂത....E0.B5.8D.E0.B4.A3.E0.B4.AF.E0.B4.82..5B14.5D)
 
Last edited:

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
There are some viruses who thrive on dividing the country based on religion, caste, creed, gender, strata.

How are you any different? You are trying to pin the blame on brahmins of today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

palindrome

Active member
How are you any different? You are trying to pin the blame on brahmins of today.
What makes you think am blaming brahmins of today? Already made it amply clear am against a particular ideology, which gets propagated thru hindutva and mutt ideology. If you, as an individual, follow the hatered-filled smriti ideology, then yes, i would think you are blame-worthy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

palindrome

Active member
கால பைரவன்;196807 said:
Ref post # 24: Merely by throwing out terms, one may not fool anyone. The social system of organizing jatis is just that - a social system. The rules with which the social system is governed are the laws of the society. Just because some of these rules are written in religious texts, they do not become religious laws. This is not unique to Hinduism. Laws that governed the day-to-day lives of members of a society, are reflected in the scriptures of other major religions too including Christianity and Islam. Historians who researched these religions do not call them religious laws. Neither do they blame religion or the clergy for what was imposed by the society. If anything religious rules are seldom strictly followed, certainly not as strictly as the societal laws. The jatis were not merely occupational categories - membership to a jati was birth-based only and this precedes the varna system. The fact that birth-based caste system continues till today, much after the collapse of the varna system, is proof enough. Varna kind of organizing occupations is not a unique system as is claimed here. I had already pointed out tamil kingdom itself had a class division, with each division a conglomeration of occupational categories only. Guild societies too existed in many parts of the world. Slavery/violence are not products of religion. That is simply a false claim. Neighboring kingdoms were constantly at war with each other and people who lost were enslaved by the victors. The enslaved groups were obviously forced to do occupations serving the victors. When the societies grew, it became necessary to increase food production at a rapid rate and enslaved people were deployed to work in the fields. With the slaves having a lowly status in the society, and a vast majority of them working in the fields, slowly that occupation was moved down the hierarchy. Farming was classified as vaisya duty only in the beginning.

Casteism is not brahminism. That is just prejudiced thinking.
Ah the typical 'circular logic' (in your terms). Yet again.

Casteism is Brahmanism. The origin of Brahmanism, with society organized into 4 varnas represented by numerous jatis within each varna, begins from the Purushasukta wherein the virat purusha got divided into 4 parts -- head for brahmins, arms for ksatriyas, thighs for vaishyas and feet for shudras. All others got outcasted as dAsAs.

Not just Untouchability and Slavery, some groups were considered unseeable, as per dharmashastra laws. This has a social basis with victors ensalving the defeated; but also has a definitive religious basis. As explained here. Untouchables included priests of religions who did support dharmashastras.

From birth to death seperate rules governed the life of an individual. At birth, a baby had to be named as per his/her varna. Even in death, an individual was not spared of his varna. Through life and death different rituals are prescribed for each varna.

Christianity and Islam have laws for its followers versus non-followers. For example, a different set of rules for kafirs (non-muslims) and a different set for its own followers. This does not mean those laws are any better than dharmashastra laws.

The founders of religions, and religious laws, are all males. Sharia is a set of religious laws. Dharmashastras are religious laws. These religious laws thrived on suppression, as also gender bias. Show me works of historians who do not call them religious laws.

The division of tamil society is completely different from the Varna system of dharmashastras. Already described this time and again in various posts. This one was most recent. I ask Kalabhairava the same question I asked here -- Show me any tamil / sangam literature which endorses slavery, and that too using violence.

Caste predates varna. There is no evidence of violence and rigidly fixing birth-based occupations in a clan-based society (i.e., in clans and tribes which had organized themselves on the basis of caste / jati (occupation).) The proponents of varna system were not indigenous. They imposed varna system on indigenous societies.

All this has been discussed time and again in older threads.

Looking forward to your reply to post # 26.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

palindrome

Active member


My knowledge is only minimal but which Dharmasastra text/s lay down the various castes under each of the four original varnas? To the best of my knowledge the only book of this type is some SAnkarasmriti*** which was accepted in Kerala by the Nambudiris and all other people.
Sangom Sir,

Since a few months now, there is a definitive change in your posts. For someone who posted threads as this -- http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...i-authored-safeguard-kshatriya-interests.html -- I find it amusing you say your knowledge of dharmashastra is minimal.

Am sure you are aware Manusmriti lists and represents various castes and varnas. Had also discussed Gautama, Apasthamba, Vashista and Baudhayana. You too were part of discussions in a multitude of threads about smritis (dharmashastras). Perhaps this particular post may help.

Regarding sAnkara smriti, am not aware of it. Will try to look up details on it.

But there is enough evidence through official census reports that under each caste (like Nair, Ezhava, Pulaya, KammALan, etc.,) more and more sub-groups originated from within the original castes themselves and within such sub-groups there was untouchability, need to keep distances for the sake of (bodily/ritual) purity, and if this was violated severe penances had to be made.
It therefore appears to me that this tendency to form kind of "guilds" and to consider themselves ritually purer than some other groups had been a tendency within the Indian people.
Am not aware of such an 'evidence' -- please do elaborate on this. I have only read about clans and tribes, and amply discussed their social organization systems in older threads.

I do subscribe to the Aryan-Dravidian concepts and I feel that the Aryans on coming into this sub-continent, found very many indigenous tribes who were mutually inimical with one another, and the Aryans put these various mutually warring tribal groups under four large labels to which they were possibly accustomed since the Iranian society also had a four-fold classification.
Sorry sir, the Iranian society had a 3-fold division not 4-fold. I have no decided views on aryan-dravidian. All my current views are based on currently available information and will change with emerging evidence. So far atleast, I subscribe to the view of Frits Staal, which we already discussed in older threads (this being the latest one).

The blame for making castes has however been put on the heads of brahmins because they, as the only group capable of making slokas, sutras, orally memorized texts, etc., put down certain things without giving the whole background.
Sorry sir, i do not accept this point. The term 'brahmin' is a very generic one. The problem, in my view, is only with the smarta / hindutva ideology of varna vyavastha. Since its genesis in the colonial period, the hindutva ideology has been very problematic. If left unchecked, it will create civil wars in india, just as islamic fundamentalists made pakistan a failed state.

At the beginning of the 20th. century, the NE areas had very many tribes who were constantly at war with each other and the severed head of an enemy tribal male was a prized possession and a status symbol. Perhaps one can find this same feelings even today among the Nagas of Nagaland, I believe.
Head hunting is known to have existed in various parts of the world. Am not sure what connection this has with our current discussion on dharmashastras.

In any case more unbiased research needs to be done about caste system in India as distinguished from the four-varnas system, I think.
I agree.

*** I find it is not even "SAnkarasmriti" which lays down the castes of Kerala but a book called "jAtinirNayaM" of unknown authorship dated 16th. century A.D. (Ref: ????????? - ???????????)
Thank you for this information. Will read up more on this.

Thank you sir.
 
Last edited:

Nara

Well-known member
....Although you wanted a definitive evidence that Agastya was a Brahmin, you yourselves seem to know very little about him when you question "Who was the Agastya who compiled the first Tamil Grammar".

But you jolly well let your speculation run wild by opening up the possibility that he could very well be an extraordinary Siddhar. ReallY ?? Who told you that? Do you have any evidence? If you can speculate in this forum why not others speculate in this forum and other forums?
Dear zebra16, I think you have overlooked two important points that make your objection invalid.

#1. The OP made a definitive claim, "Tamil saint Agastya is considered son of Varuna and Urvasi. This brings Varuna closer to Tamils. Agastya was the one who made a grammar for Tamil language." And then there was this, "How come they don't realize the fact (emphasis mine) that the person who compiled Tamil Grammar was a Brahmin!LOL" from post #4. These are not speculations. This was the context and my comment was to show there was no definitive evidence that Agastya was a Brahmin.

#2. Only to make a definitive claim as was done by the OP and post #4 one needs definitive evidence. To speculate or propose an alternative theory we need only circumstantial evidence, and I submit to you, there are enough textual and iconographic evidence to show the Agstya who compiled Tamil grammar was a Siddhar -- it is not a case of "speculation run wild" as you have accused. In as much as many Siddha texts are attributed to Agastya, whoever he was, he was certainly an extraordinary siddhar.


The way the expected company joins in your evidence-free possibility of Agastya being an extra ordinary Siddhar, it will become an indisputable fact in this forum within a period of six months and this thread will be quoted as Ph.D thesis.

By the way. does the principle of rationality take leave of absence in the case of Siddhars, whether ordinary or extra ordinary? What does science say about existence of siddhis.
I don't understand this tone of sarcasm from you in your entire post. Did I ever treat you with such derision? Please zebra16, let us try to be considerate to each other, if not to everyone in the forum.

best regards ....
 
Last edited:

sangom

Well-known member
Sangom Sir,

Since a few months now, there is a definitive change in your posts. For someone who posted threads as this -- http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...i-authored-safeguard-kshatriya-interests.html -- I find it amusing you say your knowledge of dharmashastra is minimal.

Am sure you are aware Manusmriti lists and represents various castes and varnas. Had also discussed Gautama, Apasthamba, Vashista and Baudhayana. You too were part of discussions in a multitude of threads about smritis (dharmashastras). Perhaps this particular post may help.

Dear Palindrome,

I agree that there has been change in my views about "jAthis" vis-a-vis the varnas since the last one year or so. When I joined this forum in May 2010, I was having the impression that the smritis were completely responsible for all the caste panorama that we had/still have in India. But subsequent readings about Kerala as also India, has made me rethink this point.

It is true that "theeNDal" (ritual impurity by simply coming near) is mostly a Kerala-based idea but in one book it was stated that in the north this had undergone a change because of the Mughal rule and has survived as 'from whom we can drink water?' and 'with whom we can eat in the same row or panthi?'. I remember such ideas are still prevalent even among the lowest castes in UP etc., from my old reading.

Am not aware of such an 'evidence' -- please do elaborate on this. I have only read about clans and tribes, and amply discussed their social organization systems in older threads.


I understand that at the dawn of the 20th. century what was then NEFA, had hundreds of tribes most of whom were at war with each other and head-hunting from other tribes was a prestige. This comes from some Malayalam books, written, incidentally by an OBC person.

Because of such new inputs I have started doubting whether at all Manu's delineation of pratiloma unions and their results can be the sole reason for the origin of the myriad of castes, sub-castes and even sub-sub-castes may be or whether Manu was just attempting some labelling of broad categories over and above the original four of the chAturvarNya in order to put the innumerable groups of indigenous people into and some manual of social conduct to be uniformly followed by the Aryan migrants, made in that way.

Sorry sir, the Iranian society had a 3-fold division not 4-fold. I have no decided views on aryan-dravidian. All my current views are based on currently available information and will change with emerging evidence. So far atleast, I subscribe to the view of Frits Staal, which we already discussed in older threads (this being the latest one).

There was this classification in ancient Persia AFAI have read : Arthvan, Rathestar, Vastrayosh & Hutoksha. The last corresponded to the Sudra and denoted, in ancient Persia to the camp followers during travels.
I tend to believe, till some scientific evidence comes up to disprove it, that the vedas, vedic language, its refined sanskrit form and the whole vedic religion were not autochthonous to this sub-continent and were imported by group/s of foreign people who came here and have by now mingled almost completely with the rest of the indian population so that even genetic identification will be next to impossible now. (The only groups which may provide some interesting findings may be the Chitpavan Brahmins and the Namboodiris.)

Sorry sir, i do not accept this point. The term 'brahmin' is a very generic one. The problem, in my view, is only with the smarta / hindutva ideology of varna vyavastha. Since its genesis in the colonial period, the hindutva ideology has been very problematic. If left unchecked, it will create civil wars in india, just as islamic fundamentalists made pakistan a failed state.

The problem you have, seems to me to be that your span of history starts from the so-called "colonial period" and your bete noire is currently the smArtas. Just as in my case your dislike of the smArtas is a somewhat recent phenomenon. But in the beginning of the colonial period (1600 A.D.) only smArta brahmins would have been there and even the kshatropetas were not outside the ambit of smritis, I believe.

The varna vyavastha does not exist now as far as governance is concerned but jAthi or caste is in full swing. But, do you think this caste phenomenon is as bad as the varna vyavastha?

Head hunting is known to have existed in various parts of the world. Am not sure what connection this has with our current discussion on dharmashastras.

Kindly read my post again as a whole. This reference to head-hunting was to support the observation that thousands of years ago this whole sub-continent might also have been in such a social state. Hence it is relevant to my observation that

"I do subscribe to the Aryan-Dravidian concepts and I feel that the Aryans on coming into this sub-continent, found very many indigenous tribes who were mutually inimical with one another, and the Aryans put these various mutually warring tribal groups under four large labels to which they were possibly accustomed since the Iranian society also had a four-fold classification."
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
What makes you think am blaming brahmins of today? Already made it amply clear am against a particular ideology, which gets propagated thru hindutva and mutt ideology. If you, as an individual, follow the hatered-filled smriti ideology, then yes, i would think you are blame-worthy.

You do not want my opinion about you.
What do you achieve by blaming one set of people for the follies committed thousands of years ago. You just rake up mud to show your "knowledge". Have you done anything for the upliftment of human beings? Your rant on this site against the majority of the site members is pure hatred and nothing else. What I like about history, is to learn from them, and not necessarily live in that period. You on the other hand never came out of it. This living in the past is what drives you.
 

Nara

Well-known member
Dear palindrome, I want to let you know there are many here who value your scholarship and contributions. I never miss reading your posts.

Please be selective in who you respond to, there is too much animosity and too little moderation in this forum.

wishing you well ....
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Dear palindrome, I want to let you know there are many here who value your scholarship and contributions. I never miss reading your posts.

Please be selective in who you respond to, there is too much animosity and too little moderation in this forum.

wishing you well ....

Are you joining this hate mongering because Palindroneji is against Smarthas? What if she was against Vaishnavas, would you still say the same things? Just be careful, it is dangerous to cultivate poison.

I hate to add in this thread, it has lost its focus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks