From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Hinduism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Jack Greenmaven, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on May 10, 2012. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
This article has an assessment summary page.


This article really needs tidying.up with views of all contained - too much reference to mythological texts and without balance to modern westerm views — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence first (talkcontribs) 14:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Term Brahmin actually refers to the religious practitioners or dealers, the people who used religion as their livelihood.In the true sense of the word Brahmin is a mosnomer , rather self-glorification. Their entire story is nothing but their genealogy which is nothing but mythology.For the practice of Varnasram or Casteism education became restricted to them only and the result is what we have got in Indian continent.Rishis are of pre-varnasram period terminology , they werer not Brahmin or Priest Caste.However now the better truth is success succeeds nothing. (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that say this or is it just another anti-Brahmin story? - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
"Casteism", nice made up word, speaks enough that how trollish discussion you are aiming for.. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It's defined as "adherence to a caste system" in my Oxford English Dictionary, and mentioned in Caste system in India. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps not surprising, given that I'm perfect and a pig just flew past ... and insert that word all over the place. Similarly, "casteist". - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyways, in the end, Brahmin is just a term for "teacher", "priest". Bladesmulti (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Are Pancha-dravida's Brahmin's?[edit]

Is there any reliable source of information that pancha-dravida refers to the Brahmin's of south India? I see it as a false propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkumarbalakrishnan (talkcontribs) 04:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty. The article needs a complete overhaul but, for example, this, this, this, this and this all appear on the first page of my Google Books source and all refer to it. Why do you consider it to be "false propaganda"? Propaganda driven by whom? - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks there are people who visit this page only for digging some anti-hindu bias, but when they find none they rage on these talk pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Without knowing the facts and terming the above concept as "false propaganda" is a bit rediculous and foolish!!? -Rayabhari (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the books reference Sitush. If Pancha-Dravida's refer to Brahmin's then why do etymologists have categorized Indian languages as Indo-Aryan and Dravidian. And ofcourse Sanskrit comes under Indo-Aryan language. Only if you dig deeper you can find the roots of Hinduism and casteism, till the advent of Buddhism there was no caste categorization in Hinduism, all educated were called as Brahmans. There were no untouchables, its only between 100 to 200 AD, when Upanishads and Puranas were written, casteism gained grounds by scholars who wanted their lineage to be called as Brahmana's or the educated. I'm not intended in making anti-hindu or foolish comments here, I thought it would be a healthy debate but I can see some souring over here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkumarbalakrishnan (talkcontribs) 08:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of sources[edit]

Please do not use sources published by Gyan or by Global Vision, such as this one. Neither publisher is reliable and that has been a long-standing community consensus, eg: User:Sitush/Common#Gyan and WP:MIRROR both make mentions of the issues. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I added some texts from this book to inform Vishwakarma's 5 faces name because author of this book P. Sadanandam used Vishwakarma Purana which is part of rigveda to get this knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talkcontribs) 17:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter - it is not reliable, period. Self-revert, find something else and explain why the five faces are so important. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Brahmins were born from this five faces so this names are important matter in brahmin's history section, Brahmin history available in Purusha Sukta and Vishwakarma Purana is part of Rigveda 10th Mandala so its reliable, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talkcontribs) 07:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
So you say. Do you have a reliable source that says it ... and why is this mythology important to their history? Perhaps you cannot see the wood for the trees but the majority of people are not Brahmins and statements such as this are meaningless without context. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Read this books also have this details ( Vishwakarma's five faces ( sons ) names )

1, People of India: Maharashtra - Part 2 - Page 928 2, Exploring India's Sacred Art: Selected Writings of Stella ... - Page 61 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talkcontribs) 17:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The second of those sources does not say what you reinstated in the article; the first is not reliable. Leave it with me and I'll sort it out. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I've had to revert you again. You are clearly pushing a Vishwakarma-oriented agenda here and you are getting it wrong. As with many things Hindu, there are various theories regarding Purusha. Please can you lay off this POV pushing because it is generally accepted that the Vishwakarma (caste) are not Brahmin and you are not going to try to persuade people otherwise by the back door. I'll be expanding the bit about faces etc but it will not give undue emphasis to the Vishwakarma claim. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Read purusha sukta if you want to know who is purusha, purusha also known as Vishwakarma
Purusha sukta - second anuvAka - Verse 1
adbhyassambhoota: prthivyai rasAcca
tasya tvaSHTA vidadhadroopameti
tatpuruSHasya vishvamAjAnamagre
Meaning : (adbhya:) From the waters and from the (rasAt) elemental essence of (prthivyai) earth (sambhoota:) was the bramhAnda, the Universe, born. (vishvakarmaNa:) As vishvakarma, the divine architect, did puruSHa, who is (adhi) more than that Universe, appear (samavartata). (tvashTA) As tvashTA, the divine smith he (vidadhat) establishes (tasya roopam) his form, that includes all the worlds (eti) and manifests it everywhere. (agre) In the beginning was (tat puruSHasya) that puruSHa's (vishvam) all, his vishva roopa, (Ajanam) formed.
The waters of destruction are again the waters of creation, and from them does the earth reveal itself after praLaya. From these elemental materials is the universe formed, and into these it dissolves. Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. tvashTA was the smith who forges Indra's vajra, thunderbolt, from the bones of the RSHi dadeechi. Vishvakarma is the divine architect who planned and built, among other cities, Kubera's Alakaapuri and also Lanka, and Indra's city.
From the waters and earth
Does all appear
As a builder he builds,
As a smith he forges it..
He who was all
Before the all was.
@Sitush Read exact history before you post wrong statements about any community, wikipedia is not the place to post your stupidity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talkcontribs) 04:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
No. You should read WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. Gopalan, you are not going to "win" in this discussion because you do not appear to have yet gained sufficient knowledge of our policies. Participation in discussions will, of course, improve your knowledge of policies if you are amenable to learning. However, you also seem to have an axe to grind. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you should be limiting yourself to comments on this talk page rather than editing the article itself because you seem to have a conflict of interest and it is clearly affecting your use of sources. You are not the first and you will not be the last, so there's no need to feel bad about it: just learn. - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Talk about above mentioned purusha sukta content that clearly show purusha is vishwakarma, edit with this details in article, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talkcontribs) 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems that you have not read the links that I provided, ie: WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Read many reference here in Google Books these all explain Purusha is Visvakarman so try to understand the history that say The Designer is brahmin NOT Priest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talkcontribs) 07:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
We don't take search results pages as reliable sources. You'll have to be more specific because your search term will inevitably produce false positives. Better still, just drop the whole matter and go do something that doesn't involve the Vishwakarma caste connection for a few months. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I notice at Purusha Sukta#Content claims that there are several variant deities (?) to whom the Purusha name may relate, one of which is Vishwakarma. Since there are several, since the hymn is actually called Purusha ... and since it usually makes sense to follow the article title in naming disputes (on the assumption that the title will likely be the most neutral and common), it would seen that just showing Purusha in this article would be the way to go. Of course, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, so I'm just throwing this out here for consideration. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Universe ( purusha ) emerged in the small part of big dark matter area ( hiranya ) as self designer ( vishwakarma ) who is the king of the universe ( prajapathi ) so this universe known with these different names — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talkcontribs) 09:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you are talking in riddles and you've still not provided a source. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
1,Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta By Rene Gueno describes about this matter page 40 [...] see especially the purusha sukta of the Rig veda Purusha sukta 10.90 Vishvakarma, an aspect or function of 'Universal Man', corresponds to the 'Great Architect of the Universe' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talkcontribs) 11:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
2,The Strides of Vishnu printed in Oxford University Press page 98 By Ariel Glucklich Professor of Theology Georgetown University found something regarding purusha and visvakarma There was the monistic approch of yajna-valkya and uddalaka aruni from the rig-veda and the brahmanas : Agni, savitar, prajapati, vishvakarman, hiranyagarbha and purusha and the various ritual ideas that accompanied them...
3,The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy By H. P. Blavatsky - Another book printed by cambridge university press shows purusha and visvakarman is same He ( Man 'purusha', or 'visvakarman' ) had seven enclosing logs of fuel and thrice even layers of fuel when the gods performed the sacrifice they bound the man as victm ... This relates to the three spentenary primeval races, and shows the antiquity of the vedas...Gopalan Acharya (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Helena Blavastsky is a fringe writer, and her books is only useful if we want to discuss theosophy here. She is not a reliable source for anything to do with Brahmins. CUP publishes a whole series of esoteric books[=Historic%2Btitles] none of which would be reliable sources for factual material. Your first book is published by a publisher specialising in Perennial philosophy books, again fringe material. I have no idea what your comments on the second book mean. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We are finding the first brahmins names those who was born from "purusha's mouth" to add in brahmin history section, according to purusha sukta brahmins were born from purusha's mouth, continue read rig-veda... purusha sukta, hiranya garbha sukta, visvakarma sukta to get that first brahmins names Gopalan Acharya (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Above three references i added to inform Vishvakarman is Purusha, do you agree this ?Gopalan Acharya (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
4, "Visvakarman" as being identical with the deity of the "Purusha-sukta" Essays On Indo-Aryan Mythology - By Aiyangar Narayan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talkcontribs) 18:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Besides the fact that the book is over a century old, it doesn't actually say what you say it says. It says "the author regards...." - who is the author that is being referred to here? You do know that you can't just take a snippet like that and use it, I hope. The next sentence might be "Of course, this is clearly wrong." I've reverted your recent edit - among other things you made it appear to be in the two sources cited there.So far you have no reliable sources making this identification. If you do find one, bring it here but it will almost certainly need attribution. It's pretty obvious by now that if this identification is common you'd have been able to find sources that meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
That was not snippet, check my reference link again there you can read complete story, see that details "Visvakarman" as being identical with the deity of the "Purusha-sukta" brahmin history and first brahmins names you can read from the Rigveda Mandala 10 all this references are taken from academical sources not from century old ancient texts, anyway we are making article for century old history of Brahmins community so the first names of the brahmins is important in brahmin history section Gopalan Acharya (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Google Books shows different views in different parts of the world, so it may be snippet for one person but not for another. That said, you're still not going to get your way. As I've said before here, there is no agreement regarding Purusha connections and thus to suggest that the Vishkwakarma one is the only option out there would be incorrect. Best to leave it at what is agreed (ie: use "Purusha") and let the reader determine what the implications of that might be. I checked this out with someone whom I regard as something of an expert when it comes to issues on Wikipedia related to Hinduism - see User_talk:Redtigerxyz#Synonyms_of_Purusha - and I really do think that members of the Vishwakarma community active on this project now need to back off pushing their point of view at the expense of the views held by others. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree vaishnavas argument as vishnu is purusha ( brahma, vishnu, shiva, agni and varuna is different form of Purusha ) but we are discussing what is the names of first brahmins which is available in Rigveda Mandala 10, this is not pushing for vishwakarma caste, @Sitush there is many academical source says vishwakarma caste is brahmin but you are continue deleting this truth from the brahmin article, let me find some more details for brahmin history section. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Gopalan Aacharya.., whatever attempts you make to establish Viswakarma as Brahmin, it is true that Viswakarmas were never Brahmins. (Actually, there is no caste called Viswakarma. It is a term coined later to collectively call some castes of the working class - Shudra class). The castes now called as Visvakarmas neither enjoyed the status of Brahmin, nor obtained the status of Brahmin. In modern India, all these things doesn't matter. Even-though, you are trying to put Viswakarma as Brahmin Caste in this article. You may be able to put Viswakarma as Brahmin in Wikipedia by citing a lot of 'reliable'(? !!!) sources. But that will not become the truth. If you win in your effort to show Viswakarma as Brahmin in this article, it will be the failure of Wikipedia 'System'. Remember 'Truth alone Triumphs' सत्यमेव जयते - Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Prasanthnnamboothiri I agree there was no caste called Viswakarma in history but there was five brahmins born from virat purusha vishwakarma's face, you have to read vedas and purana to know who is brahmin and their works., according to vedas brahmin is designer not priest to know more read Chittoor Jilla Adalath Theerpu 15 Dec 1918 so now that vedic designers who was orginel brahmins called vishwakarma caste in modern india. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Whatever it may be, we are not in Wikipedia to recreate History as we wish. We cannot make who were known as non-brahmins in the History to Brahmins by using Wikipedia. It is true that there were no caste called Viswakarma. Whatever be the duties assigned to Brahmins by Vedas, irrespective of they performed it or not, there were certain castes who were treated as Brahmins for centuries . They are still treated as Brahmins in India, in her Caste-based reservation system. You may theoretically prove those who are known as Brahmins are not brahmins by definition. But it make no points. In our life, and practice, there were some castes who known as Brahmins. They are still continuing as Brahmins at least in the records. Don't try to establish Viswakarma(The fake caste) as Brahmin. It will not work. The castes now known commonly as Viswakarmas (such as asaris, kollans, tachans etc.) belonged to Shudra class (Class of Workers). --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
First of you read Chittoor Jilla Adalath Theerpu 15 Dec 1918 to know who is original brahmins. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Shame! So, what do you want? Brahmin status? For what? What is the use? Whatever you say, Nambudiris are Brahmins according to Kerala Social System. Try to think and write what are suitable for an encyclopedia instead of filling it with claims. At lest show that much Brahminical nature if your claim is right.--Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not forum, you can discuss about my reference links, i was finding history of first brahmins names Gopalan Acharya (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
किं फलम्? (What use?). There are so many castes described in Manusmriti. Most of them are not existing in present society. Similarly, most of the castes that we know today did not exist in the period of Manusmriti. Hence, trying to establish false things and fabricating history by searching some words from Vedas or Puranas is idiotic. The actual course of Castes in India is different from that you can see in old Smritis/Vedas/Puranas. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia can only retain what really happened. This is not a place to establish your false claims. Even if you win to place Viswakarma as Brahmin in the Wikipedia page with the help or your 'reliable resources' it will not make any change in the history, actual course and you are no way going to get benefited by such false claims. Stand with facts. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Prasanthnnamboothiri Did you see there is one section in every wiki article that is called "History"., i was adding some details about the history of brahmins and birth of first brahmins and their names they are from the "Vishwakarma Kula" known as 1- manu 2-maya 3-thwshta 4-shilpi, 5-vishwajna and gotra name is 1-sanaga , 2-sanathana , 3-abuvana, 4-prathna, 5-suparnasa read brahmins birth from the veda's creation sections like purusha sukta, vishwakarma sukta, hiranya garbha sukta etc ... Gopalan Acharya (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
What you were doing, Gopalan, was continuing your attempt to push an opinion that is accepted only by members of the Vishwakarma community and in defiance of our policy regarding neutrality. You'd be better advised to contribute to articles here on Wikipedia where you do not have an obvious conflict of interest, otherwise you are likely to go the same way as Ganesh J. Acharya (talk · contribs). Of course, if your sole purpose here is to promote that claim then you'll not mind taking that risk. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not 'vishwakarma community members agenda' its history that is available in lists of "ancient history books", there is many academical study regarding this matter, vishwakarma caste was not caste in vedic times they were technical and designing skilled people by birth that they called brahmin in vedic Hinduism later in feudalism original low and hindu life style changed then bunch of artists became part of caste system they are known as vishwakarma caste in modern india, did you learn anything about this ? Gopalan Acharya (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks to the tendentious behaviour of you and Ganesh, I've learned a lot about the Vishwakarma. not from you but because of you, ie: I've done a lot of digging around in my attempts to verify your claims. Now drop it, please. I am sure that Wikipedia's > 4 million articles must include some other subjects that would interest you and if you spent some time on them then you might begin to understand what the problems are here. I cannot keep explaining the same thing to you over and over, and if you persist in putting me in a position where I have to do this then it will end up at WP:ANI and you'll go the same way as Ganesh. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Kerala Brahmins[edit]

@ Sitush, Other than Nampoothiris, there are so many Brahmin castes in Kerala. So many references are available. You may make a search. But, recent references will be practically difficult as now a days no body in Kerala writes about the Caste System. -Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of people in recent years have written of the caste system in Kerala - you see a few of them at, erm, Caste system in Kerala. There are loads more. I do understand that modern Keralites often prefer not to self-identify with caste, for historical reasons relating to the extremes of stigmatisation, but that does not seem to have stopped the numerous studies and it has not altered the fact that Kerala has one of the highest numbers of caste-centric political parties in the country. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Then why are you deleting the facts?--Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Nampoothiris is fishermen ( Mukkuvar ) according to Skanda Purana add that history in kerala namboothiri section. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
What bit of WP:PRIMARY do you not understand? We're not using these ancient religious texts. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY doesn't mean do not collect any information from ancient historical texts. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Give the lines stating Nambudiris as Mukkuvas in Skandapurana. Even if it is so, in Kerala, they were treated as Brahmins for Centuries and still they are being treated as Brahmins. That is enough. Being a Mukkuva is also not a matter of Shame. But the truth is reverse. Nambudiris were not treated in Kerala as Mukkuvas for the last 15 or 20 centuries. Even though minorities, Nambudiris were deprived off from the reservation telling that they belongs to 'forward class' where as Mukkuvas still enjoy all the advantages of reservations. Glory to India for her Caste-based-reservation system for preserving the Caste system in the new ages also. This caste-based-reservation system itself provide proof for Nambudiris are Brahmins - as per customs and practices they followed for years. Mukkuvas were beyond the Class(Varna) system- They were not included in the Varna (Class) system. They were known as Avarnas. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
There was no caste named namboothiri before 15 centuries, namboothiri is fake caste and not original brahmin in Hinduism Gopalan Acharya (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Even if it is so, the remaining 15 centuries of History of Namputhiris are enough to get inclusion in an encyclopedia. What about the so called 'Viswakarma Caste'. It can claim a history less than one century. All of us, including you and me, know 'Viswakarma Caste' is a fabricated caste. Not formed as a result of natural social process. You may continue to fight. But for what? In the past, the so called Viswakarma castes never enjoyed Brahminical Status. If you are fighting for a Brahminical status for the present, in the present Indian Social System, there is no use. The situation of Brahmins are very poor. Anyway, I request you to provide the lines, as you mentioned, in the Skandapurana stating that Namputhiris are Mukkuvar. I have some other uses with that if I can get such a reference. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Namboothiries are treated as brahmin or treated as poojari ? there is difference between poojari and brahmin, poojari is NOT brahmin in Hinduism, centuries before Namboothiri introduced we "Namboothiries" are brahmin, uneducated kerala people were not allowed to read vedas so they believe that fake information and they treated them as brahmin but Namboothiri has no brahminical status in hindu vedic texts. regarding vishwakarma caste and their claims discussing here Reliability of sources so please do not marge subject Gopalan Acharya (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Asari, that is what you are saying. Whatever it may be, whether mentioned in Veda-puranas or not, Namputhiris are Brahmins for centuries. That is enough. You and I know what is the actual situation. Your claim for Brahminical status for the fabricated Viswakarma caste will not stand. The emerged or fabricated Viswakarma caste don't have a history more than one or two centuries. You need not waste your time to teach me your false claims. You also failed to give me the lines from Skandapurana stating that Nambudiris are Mukkuvas. Even if it is there, that doesn't matter. If you can, provide me those lines from Skandapurana--Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC).
Yes Nambudiris are Mukkuvas read S N Sadasivan; A social history of India;Page 300 : ISBN 81-7648-170-X — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talkcontribs) 04:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Asari, there you are.. "A Social History of India" by S. N. Sadasivan is written in a biased manner-it is written purely for boosting the Ezhava-Thiyya cstes. The whole book is available in Google books. You are quoting a part of the book which supports the Parasurama Mithology. It is not history. Overall, nowhere in the referred Sloka, the term Namputhiri is used. It only supports some aspects of the Parasurama mythology - in Kerala, fishermen were converted to Brahmins by Parasurama. Not more than that. All the other things are interpretations of the author- and that also in a subjective manner. If you are quoting this book, then it is very easy to establish Nambudiris as Brahmins by simply quoting from Keralolpathi. It is also noticeable that the book Keralolpathi is also referred by S.N.Sadasivan. You cant claim much more authenticity to this book than that can be attributed to Keralolpathi. Hence, this book is not sufficient for establishing your arguments and claims. First of all, you see things objectively. Then study the things based on facts. Try to develop Scientific Attitude. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
S. N. Sadasivan has long been considered unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. He had no appropriate training and exhibited numerous biasses. It was discussed extensively at Talk:Nair etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
S. N. Sadasivan noted that point ( Nambudiris was mukkuvar ) from the Skanda Purana that was not his personal view @ Prasanthnnamboothiri and @ Sitush Gopalan Acharya (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
But since Sadasivan has no relevant expertise, he is not qualified to assess the content of an ancient text. It is Sadasivan's lack of expertise that makes him unreliable, as I've already said. Look, Gopalan, your on-wiki mate Ganesh J. Acharya has just been indefinitely blocked for tendentious POV-pushing bordering on incompetence - please don't put yourself in the firing line, too. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Blunders in the page[edit]

It is nice to see that this page is getting reverted to a particular version always and all the admins are trying to freeze the page in that stage. However, the version that these admins want to keep contain so many blunders.

First of all, I would like to point out that the Nepali Brahmins is shown as a sub-sect of Pancha-Dravida Brahmins. This is absolutely wrong. No body wants any source for this blunder. The surprising fact is that, even though it is corrected a number of times, the 'intelligent' administrators reverts and brings the Nepali Brahmin section as a sub-section of Pancha-Dravida. Interesting, isn't it?. 'Nepali Brahmins' should be shown as a separate section. Not in Pancha-Dravida or Pancha-Gawda.

Next, the article presents 'Nambudiris' alone as the Brahmins in Kerala. This is a matter for laugh. And whenever I tried to add some information, it gets deleted or reverted without any proper justification or study. There are many other Brahmin and Lower-Brahmin castes in Kerala.

There are so may other blunders, idiotic sentences etc. in this article. Probably, the readers from India can understand. I am not mentioning them as that are not connected to my edits.

Sometimes I wonder, why this admin people are not even trying to read or learn something about the subject. The Kalhanas sloka and illustration was sufficient to remove the tag "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2013)" from the major section Brahmin communities. But the admins deleted/reverted everything. Shame on you people. I know, you people did not like my comments, and you will start attacking me by justifications and Wikipedia rules. Whatever it may be, try to correct this article and provide something useful to the readers. Remember 'Half-told' is dangerous than 'Wrongly told'. What you are presenting is 'half-told'. - Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of people understand that this article is a mess and you can see umpteen comments to that effect above. Including a fair few from me. However, believe it or not, the thing is much better than it was a few months ago. There is no deadline, it takes time to research stuff and if you can comply with our policies regarding reliable sources etc then there is nothing to stop you improving it yourself. You perhaps do not realise how much of the time spent on Wikipedia by experienced editors is consumed by having to repeatedly fix poor contributions: if there were less of those, there would be much more time available to actually improve significant articles such as this. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You may keep on saying the policies. There are no policies like your policies or my policies. Now I am again trying to make a small step to improve this article by making Nepali Brahmins a separate section as they do not belong to Pancha-Dravida. Let me see what the so called 'experienced editors' are doing with their experience. I want to know whether they are will stand for improving this article or to spread mistakes to the readers. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Brahmin support for the Caste System[edit]

Brahmin support for the Caste System

Brahmins form the core group defending the caste system. Brahmins did not allow other castes to read, recite and teach.

  1. REDIRECT [[1]]

Annihilation of Caste (New York: Columbia University, 2004) [1MB, 56pg, pdf]

However, due to the efforts of social reformers such as Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Jyotiba Phule and others, more and more lower caste people are now getting eduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terasala (talkcontribs) 21:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)