I have been following this discussion, with interest. We have dwelt into the plight of Brahmins in general, and Tamil Brahmins in particular, and seen suggestions about what are the ways out. Some have suggested their plight is due to their being meek, cowardly etc, and need physical training or martial arts for self-defense. Some have shared their thoughts about what is Brahmanism and who is a Brahmin.
If we just say, as some have on the thread, that Brahmin is a community as the modern India "officially" identifies, and thatâs about it, then I would say it would be very mechanical and very artificial definition, even shallow. If thatâs the case, then Brahmins are just one of the several communities which are being persecuted for what they are.
No, I think the definition of a 'Brahman' that deserves protection, should be much stricter, because the whole context and significance of impact on larger Hindu soceity is much deeper.
So, who is a Brahmin?
One who was born to the parents who were thought to be Brahmins, who in turn were born to their parents who thought of themselves as Brahmins? Practically, in todayâs sociological terms, yes. But that is a very shallow definition, because it number one, closes its doors to those who were born to non-brahmin parents but display the traits of a Brahmin. And number two, the opposite of it, it brands those as Brahmins, who have no single sign of being a Brahmin.
So, who then, is supposed to be, or let us say intended to be a Brahmin (or Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra)?
Bhagwan Sri Krishna explains this, in no ambiguous terms.
bR^hman-kshatriya-vishAm SudrANAm ca parantapa
karmAni pravibhaktAni swabhAv prabhavair guNaiH (BG 18.41)
[Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Sudra - these are the divisions of Karmas, and are effected by or resulted from one's basic tendencies (swabhAv) and qualities (guNaih)]
And he goes on to explain, what are the karma and dharma of a person to be called a Brahmin (and later those of Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra).
Samo damastapaH Saucham ChhantirArjvamev ca
gyAnam vigyAnamastikyam bramhakarma swabhAvajam (BG 18.42)
[he is committed to realizing his inner existance, controlling his senses, bears pains for sustaining Dharma, is clean from inside and out, is compassionate in forgiving others, is dedicated to the learning of Ghyan and Vigyan, and "Bramha Karma" is whose basic nature]
Let us add one more important attribute. nIti says that these 3 hathas (insistence) that are famous of all - Raj Hath, Baal Hath and Bramha Hath, and the Bramha-Hath (The insistance of Brahmin) is the toughest of all. Recall Chanakya. A Brahmin can give his life but will stick to his goal, which is his Dharma. Else he is not a Brahmin.
Below words of Swami Vivekananda explain true Brahmins in very clear terms. Below is from his writing "Mere Gurudev" or "My Master".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The life of a really orthodox Brahmin is one of continuous renunciation. Very few things can he do; ... You may imagine how rigorous that life becomes. You have heard of the Brahmins and their priestcraft many times, but very few of you have ever stopped to ask what makes this wonderful band of men the rulers of their fellows.
They are the poorest of all the classes in the country; and the secret of their power lies in their renunciation. They never covet wealth. Theirs is the poorest priesthood in the world, and therefore the most powerful. Even in this poverty, a Brahmin's wife will never allow a poor man to pass through the village without giving him something to eat. That is considered the highest duty of the mother in India; and because she is the mother it is her duty to be served last; she must see that everyone is served before her turn comes. That is why the mother is regarded as God in India. This particular woman, the mother of our subject, was the very type of a Hindu mother.
The higher the caste, the greater the restrictions. The lowest caste people can eat and drink anything they like. But as men rise in the social scale, more and more restrictions come; and when they reach the highest caste, the Brahmin, the hereditary priesthood of India, their lives, as I have said, are very much circumscribed. Compared to Western manners, their lives are of continuous asceticism.
Their lives are laid down in our old books in every little detail, and the least detail is grasped with almost adamantine firmness by them. They would starve rather than eat a meal cooked by the hands of a man not belonging to their own small section of caste. But withal, they have intensity and tremendous earnestness. That force of intense faith and religious life occurs often among the orthodox Hindus, because their very orthodoxy comes from a tremendous conviction that it is right.
We may not all think that what they hold on to with such perseverance is right; but to them it is. Now, it is written in our books that a man should always be charitable even to the extreme. If a man starves himself to death to help another man, to save that man's life, it is all right; it is even held that a man ought to do that. And it is expected of a Brahmin to carry this idea out to the very extreme.
Those who are acquainted with the literature of India will remember a beautiful old story about this extreme charity, how a whole family, as related in the Mahâbhârata, starved themselves to death and gave their last meal to a beggar. This is not an exaggeration, for such things still happen.
The character of the father and the mother of my Master was very much like that. Very poor they were, and yet many a time the mother would starve herself a whole day to help a poor man.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what is it that has happened? Where are those Brahmins? Most of those who call themselves Brahmins today, in my personal opinion are not even the shadow of the idea that we called a "Brahmin". Many that are supposed to be Brahmins, that I come across, have no qualms about eating meat, even beef, drinking, no sense of greatness their lineage is supposed to have carried, and no attitude for self-realization. Others do the same too, but then Brahmin is not allowed by his Dharma to fall to that! Although it may just be me who finds such observations, and I would not generalize, but for such cases at least, why should one stop to care for such so-called un-real name-sake Brahmins? Can one be unjustified if the respect that is privileged to a Brahmin is not present anymore?
Maharshi Dayanand (who was not born a "Brahmin" in that sense of definition), attaches the fall of our soceity to two things - the fall of Brahmin, and curse of the Sudra, and both are interrelated. If Sudra suffered, even if it was not because of the Brahmin, it was Brahmin's responsibility to uplift him, like a mother does her befallen child, he said. But Brahmin himself fell. In character, in quest, in compassion, in his perseverance to preserve Dharma.
So what is the cause of the present sorry state of Brahmins? I feel, it is their lack of sense of Dharma. Brahmins can reclaim their place and respect, as soon as they regain their Dharma. And they would not really need to learn martial arts to defend themselves.
Again going back to Bhagwan Sri Krishna:
SreyAn swadharmo viguNaH pardharmat swanuSThitAt
swabhAv niyatam karma kurvannapnoti kilviSam (BG 18.47)
sahajam karma kaunteya sadoSamapi na tyajet
sarvArambhA hi doSeN dhUmen Agniri AvritaH (BG 18.48)
[It is better to follow one's own Dharma (decided by ones nature) even if it (apparently) lacks qualities, rather than taking up (apparently) better Dharma suitable to someone else; since if one performs the Karmas according to his own natural Dharma, one would not get into Kilvisham (roughly=sins). Therefore, O Arjun, one must never let go of, one's natural Karma, even if it appears faulty. In all the beginnings, nothing is free from faults - Is not even fire itself (whose Dharma is to purify) surrounded by the smoke (in beginning)?]
And this very beutiful pearl we find in Manu Smriti - "Dharmo Rakshati, RakshitaH". Your Dharma will come to your protection, if you have protected your Dharma. (Next line says, 'your dead Dharma itself will also come to kill you, if you have allowed it to die")
That is what I feel.
If we just say, as some have on the thread, that Brahmin is a community as the modern India "officially" identifies, and thatâs about it, then I would say it would be very mechanical and very artificial definition, even shallow. If thatâs the case, then Brahmins are just one of the several communities which are being persecuted for what they are.
No, I think the definition of a 'Brahman' that deserves protection, should be much stricter, because the whole context and significance of impact on larger Hindu soceity is much deeper.
So, who is a Brahmin?
One who was born to the parents who were thought to be Brahmins, who in turn were born to their parents who thought of themselves as Brahmins? Practically, in todayâs sociological terms, yes. But that is a very shallow definition, because it number one, closes its doors to those who were born to non-brahmin parents but display the traits of a Brahmin. And number two, the opposite of it, it brands those as Brahmins, who have no single sign of being a Brahmin.
So, who then, is supposed to be, or let us say intended to be a Brahmin (or Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra)?
Bhagwan Sri Krishna explains this, in no ambiguous terms.
bR^hman-kshatriya-vishAm SudrANAm ca parantapa
karmAni pravibhaktAni swabhAv prabhavair guNaiH (BG 18.41)
[Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Sudra - these are the divisions of Karmas, and are effected by or resulted from one's basic tendencies (swabhAv) and qualities (guNaih)]
And he goes on to explain, what are the karma and dharma of a person to be called a Brahmin (and later those of Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra).
Samo damastapaH Saucham ChhantirArjvamev ca
gyAnam vigyAnamastikyam bramhakarma swabhAvajam (BG 18.42)
[he is committed to realizing his inner existance, controlling his senses, bears pains for sustaining Dharma, is clean from inside and out, is compassionate in forgiving others, is dedicated to the learning of Ghyan and Vigyan, and "Bramha Karma" is whose basic nature]
Let us add one more important attribute. nIti says that these 3 hathas (insistence) that are famous of all - Raj Hath, Baal Hath and Bramha Hath, and the Bramha-Hath (The insistance of Brahmin) is the toughest of all. Recall Chanakya. A Brahmin can give his life but will stick to his goal, which is his Dharma. Else he is not a Brahmin.
Below words of Swami Vivekananda explain true Brahmins in very clear terms. Below is from his writing "Mere Gurudev" or "My Master".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The life of a really orthodox Brahmin is one of continuous renunciation. Very few things can he do; ... You may imagine how rigorous that life becomes. You have heard of the Brahmins and their priestcraft many times, but very few of you have ever stopped to ask what makes this wonderful band of men the rulers of their fellows.
They are the poorest of all the classes in the country; and the secret of their power lies in their renunciation. They never covet wealth. Theirs is the poorest priesthood in the world, and therefore the most powerful. Even in this poverty, a Brahmin's wife will never allow a poor man to pass through the village without giving him something to eat. That is considered the highest duty of the mother in India; and because she is the mother it is her duty to be served last; she must see that everyone is served before her turn comes. That is why the mother is regarded as God in India. This particular woman, the mother of our subject, was the very type of a Hindu mother.
The higher the caste, the greater the restrictions. The lowest caste people can eat and drink anything they like. But as men rise in the social scale, more and more restrictions come; and when they reach the highest caste, the Brahmin, the hereditary priesthood of India, their lives, as I have said, are very much circumscribed. Compared to Western manners, their lives are of continuous asceticism.
Their lives are laid down in our old books in every little detail, and the least detail is grasped with almost adamantine firmness by them. They would starve rather than eat a meal cooked by the hands of a man not belonging to their own small section of caste. But withal, they have intensity and tremendous earnestness. That force of intense faith and religious life occurs often among the orthodox Hindus, because their very orthodoxy comes from a tremendous conviction that it is right.
We may not all think that what they hold on to with such perseverance is right; but to them it is. Now, it is written in our books that a man should always be charitable even to the extreme. If a man starves himself to death to help another man, to save that man's life, it is all right; it is even held that a man ought to do that. And it is expected of a Brahmin to carry this idea out to the very extreme.
Those who are acquainted with the literature of India will remember a beautiful old story about this extreme charity, how a whole family, as related in the Mahâbhârata, starved themselves to death and gave their last meal to a beggar. This is not an exaggeration, for such things still happen.
The character of the father and the mother of my Master was very much like that. Very poor they were, and yet many a time the mother would starve herself a whole day to help a poor man.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what is it that has happened? Where are those Brahmins? Most of those who call themselves Brahmins today, in my personal opinion are not even the shadow of the idea that we called a "Brahmin". Many that are supposed to be Brahmins, that I come across, have no qualms about eating meat, even beef, drinking, no sense of greatness their lineage is supposed to have carried, and no attitude for self-realization. Others do the same too, but then Brahmin is not allowed by his Dharma to fall to that! Although it may just be me who finds such observations, and I would not generalize, but for such cases at least, why should one stop to care for such so-called un-real name-sake Brahmins? Can one be unjustified if the respect that is privileged to a Brahmin is not present anymore?
Maharshi Dayanand (who was not born a "Brahmin" in that sense of definition), attaches the fall of our soceity to two things - the fall of Brahmin, and curse of the Sudra, and both are interrelated. If Sudra suffered, even if it was not because of the Brahmin, it was Brahmin's responsibility to uplift him, like a mother does her befallen child, he said. But Brahmin himself fell. In character, in quest, in compassion, in his perseverance to preserve Dharma.
So what is the cause of the present sorry state of Brahmins? I feel, it is their lack of sense of Dharma. Brahmins can reclaim their place and respect, as soon as they regain their Dharma. And they would not really need to learn martial arts to defend themselves.
Again going back to Bhagwan Sri Krishna:
SreyAn swadharmo viguNaH pardharmat swanuSThitAt
swabhAv niyatam karma kurvannapnoti kilviSam (BG 18.47)
sahajam karma kaunteya sadoSamapi na tyajet
sarvArambhA hi doSeN dhUmen Agniri AvritaH (BG 18.48)
[It is better to follow one's own Dharma (decided by ones nature) even if it (apparently) lacks qualities, rather than taking up (apparently) better Dharma suitable to someone else; since if one performs the Karmas according to his own natural Dharma, one would not get into Kilvisham (roughly=sins). Therefore, O Arjun, one must never let go of, one's natural Karma, even if it appears faulty. In all the beginnings, nothing is free from faults - Is not even fire itself (whose Dharma is to purify) surrounded by the smoke (in beginning)?]
And this very beutiful pearl we find in Manu Smriti - "Dharmo Rakshati, RakshitaH". Your Dharma will come to your protection, if you have protected your Dharma. (Next line says, 'your dead Dharma itself will also come to kill you, if you have allowed it to die")
That is what I feel.