Talk:Brahmin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

comment

• Re Brahmin#Loss of caste, see talk:Brahmin#Loss of caste.

The concept of Dravidian Race is surely a new one. In classical Sanskrit Dravid just mean South and has nothing to do with Race. Most Indians in most regions of India belong to the Aryan Race. The so called Dravidian Race (concept originating from the British) refers to Indians who are aboriginals etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.3.245 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Castes and Tribes of Punjab: A hidden agenda of Punjabis

Some Punjabi Supremacist is embedding "ethnic and social groups of Punjab" everywhere. These Punjabi supremacists have a hidden agenda as they want to imply all brahmins are from Punjab. The fact is Brahmins are present all over India, and their percentage is highest in Uttar-Pradesh. See this link.

http://superhindus.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/dalit-up-chief-minister-to-use-e-tendering-for-ending-brahmin-mafia-raj/brahmin-percentage-in-indian-states/

We must find out who these Punjabi supremacists are? And ban them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjayMohan (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

As a brahmin, I can say that this article ish horrbily written. Your sources should be the Manu Smrti, the Upanishads and the Rigveda, not some Racist white superiorist or some Dalit. This is not a racial attack, we live in a democracy and I as a brahmin can say that this article is wrong. Also, the roots of the saptarshis are not mentioned - neither are the proper roles. In fact, all the articles on India are badly written. There is a huge disjoint between the Indus Valley civilisation and the Vedic Culture (which, I would like to point out are the same). Anyone who knew nothing about India would be confused. There should be better sources, and different viewpoints. I am ready to contribute if I get support. Also, if you feel that what I am saying is wrong then please say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjvyas (talk • contribs) 08:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

God forgive all the proud

Proud people adding comments like this, God forgive them all, "for the man who walks and talks with pride is not a son of God". I was a Hindu, but seeing all this, I chose a path of complete freedom and joy. All you should stop idol worship which is a sin for there is only one God and one God alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.242.186 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A brahman is a mind that seeks knowledge, pride prevents learning, so a brahman must never succumb to pride, bigotry, self importance. Those who do are not true brahmans, but only in name. Also keep yourself away from fundamentalist rigid ideas like Islam and God belief. - D. Chakraborty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.193.216 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh! So we are not!

An anomaly which needs some explanation is: Both the references mentioned for Brahmin communities mention ‘Kayastha Brahmin’ as a sub-caste, yet the learned writer of the article eludes from mentioning Kayasthas in the article. Who are the experts the references or us? Or is the Machiavellian divide put in by ‘some’ still is in our minds, even though our religious texts have proved it to be an utter fallacy, used for petty earthly motive of spreading an Empire. Or being the progeny of a Deity not qualification enough?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil Srivastava (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER to (No to being high caste)

I have edited the societal rank of a 'brahmin'. It is very sad when people begin sentences like "Looks like some brahmin ..". So, the hatred continues unfortunately. This is not edited by a brahmin but by a non brahmin historian. If one reads the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, Upanishads and smriti texts or other early Vedic sanskrit texts there are a numerous references on the position of a 'brahmin' in the society. Classical Hinduism (Hinduism, when it originated it the law,

"From Manu's head came the Brahmins, the best and most holy people. Out of Manu's hands came the Kshatriyas, the rulers and warriors. The craftsmen came from his thighs and are called Vaisyas, ....". By Vedic law, the caste system flourished more like a discipline for peace and prosperity than as a concentration of power. The article about the origins of a 'brahmin' and not how Hinduism evolved into what it is today.

There may have been the highest, the second highest or even the lowest with time. The Rajputs may have acquired the highest position -- that is irrelevant to the article ( as a social group when Hinduism originated, there was hierarchy and ranking)

They were not just priests(only a subsect performed priestly duties), there were teachers of Dharma and also doctors originally. There were also many Brahmin Kings in the later vedic ages. They performed rituals for "WORLD PEACE". The gayatri mantra is chanted for world peace.

I notice a claim below that the rajputs performed rituals only for their prosperity but that was not how it began in the vedic age.

Their position in the society is the highest, they were the most respected. (there is a also a story in Mahabharata where Dharma raja fails to punish a brahmin saying he is beyond Kingly law).

If you need references please read early vedic literature and vedic literature.

I removed the content on whether they performed pujas for Kings or any other groups or not. That depends on where the power was concentrated. The caste system began with some ideas. It evolved with time. The highest caste claim was made as per Vedic Dharma. It is a pity that user User talk:117.198.242.128 is ignorant of Vedic Dharma.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.255.90 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No to being high caste

Looks like some brahmin edited with self-centred ideas, this article has also been attacked by people of other castes claiming their caste to be the highest leading to a bad spirit. Most of this part has been edited out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.242.128 (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be new to Wikipedia. Welcome. Please start all new conversations at the bottom of a talk page.

Now coming to your point, Wikipedia is certainly not the place to "celebrate achievements", but it is also not a place to "put the story right" because of personal prejudices (see WP:WWIN). There are active users to see that articles remain encyclopaedic. You are welcome to contribute (it is a community project after all), but if you write something, please write it neutrally and justify it with proper sources (WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS should get you started). Otherwise, it may be removed.

Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As an academician, I find this discussion very superficial. Many interventions reflect fringe political/quasi-ideological assertions of little- if not 'no -value' - to a wiki which is collection and collation of verifiable facts. There are other forums for conducting 'debates' and articulation of identity politics, where these interventions may indeed be very valuable. My sincere request is take these objections to a more appropriate forum for discussion. And let wiki record facts as they are 'believed to be'. Challenge it, by all means, but place for that is an academic journal which is reviewed and reflected upon by the relevant section of the peer group e.g. historians, sociologists etc.

FluxusTalk (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Max, thank you for the welcome. Yes I am new as far as commentary is concerned though I have been a user of this useful project for some time.

Apologies for taking the "higher ground" as it were. I was fortunate enough to get something on as it took me a while to work out how to make the entry. Will know better next time and join the queue - also know as the Indian file.

It was not my intention to "put the story right" to serve some prejudice but to put the story right in a factual sense by disclosing the attitude Indians have to this claim. A claim that is made simplistically and is wrong. The claim to be the highest caste is NOT uncontroversial - that is a fact which this entry does not acknowledge. Sure enough it is an oft repeated claim by brahmins especially abroad but not one they would make to a Rajput. Brahmins in practice show cosniderable respevt and deference to Rajputs and generally that is reciprocated. This extends to intermarriage between those castes as well

As i sought to demnsotrate by analogy, the Kings and noblemen of India were not brahmins but Rajputs - that is not a prejudice but a fact. The role of brahmins has been one of support to them as teachers and court advisers which role brahmins were able to transfer to non-Rajput rulers of India such as the muslims and the British.

Interestingly, despite the history of Rajputs one does not encounter Rajputs making any crass claim for any primacy in the manner of brahmins - it would not be in the make-up of a Rajput. This is a peculiarly brahmin trait. OK I accpet this is a personal view whihc you may term prejudice.

By controlling religion they are also able to excercise significant control over the lower castes, poor and the ingnorant but not the Rajputs. Rajputs have traditionally reminded brahmins of their role of service to Rajputs. There are many historical markers of this tension such as Buddhism and Arya Samaj.

So with the greatest respect for the aim of your contributors to achieve neutrality, the assertion I sought to correct is not neutral and in itself not suported by ANY source. Well it cannot be. Thus it fails this sites own high (properly so) test and in my respectful view should be qualified in the manner I had sought to do or in a manner that meets the standards of this site.

The weakness of this claim for primacy by brahmins is highlighted by other entries on Wikipaedia such as the one on caste and manusmriti. These entries highlight that the traditional role of brahmins in Indian society to be no more than one of service and poverty. Vedic works do not support this claim. Works that do make this claim (such as the puran and manusmriti) are of later vinatge and considered to be of lower and dubios value and written by the very same brahmins who miraclously fnd a basis for supremac. Much like the the bible in which claims made about Judaic military triumps (and the existence of Kings David, Solomon and the golden age of Judaic kings) have been found to have no arhaeological support. This did not prevent learned texts (ie the books of the bible written much later than the events they pruport to record) from asserting these "facts" and for these "facts" to be accepted today as truisms.

The silly claim that brahmins are the highest caste has led to all sorts of misconceptions inthe west such as the operatic character 'Lakhme' said to be a brahmin princess - no such thing. All hindu princesses would have been of Rajput lineage.

Needless to say there are many other contributions that I have come across that are of dubious value but life is too short to rail against all of them.

Trust you will find my criticism constructive and otherwise keep up the good work. Look fowrd to seeing this entry amended. Rajputana 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rajputana,

Thank you for pointing out the lack of sources for "highest caste". I have added two reputed, reliable and verifiable sources (Encyclopedia Britannica and dictionary.com) to support that sentence in the intro. The simple reason for why there were no sources for it was because no one had objected to that line till now :-).

Now coming to your point, I admire your passion and pride for Rajputs, but you must set such emotions aside when you step into a Wikipedia editor's role. The arguments that you make, no matter how compelling, cannot be added to the article until they are corroborated by external, reliable and verifiable source(s). As this Wikipedia policy states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

As a wildly hypothetical example, let's suppose that everyone in the world says that the sun moves around the earth. Let us further suppose that you, and only you, find out that it is the other way round. Still, you will not be able add this "truth" to Wikipedia because your statements will a) not be verifiable through or traceable to reliable sources and b) count as original research, which Wikipedia disallows. If your claims are published by reputed scientific journals, then you are free to edit away. Until then, sorry mate.

The bottom line is, until you can prove your claims with third-party, reliable and verifiable sources, whatever you say will be counted as personal opinion and original research.

I'm sorry if any of the above sounds unduly harsh, but I hope that you got the point.

Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 07:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Max,

Early apologies for typos.

Work commitments have prevented me from responding to your last entry in a manner that would do it justice.

Max old son, you damn me with faint praise by crediting my contributions to mere "passion and pride for Rajputs". If I have a passion it is for the joust - mental in this case.

I do not consider any system with rigour in it to be unduly harsh provided it is wielded as a double-edged sword (perhaps I am displaying my Rajputness here)- in other words it applies to you to.

To the twin tests of the verifiability through reliable sources and original research. The latter may be difficult in this situation because what is sought to be encapsulated in this entry is social custom and practice. As such, this is not, as I trust you will appreciate, something lying dormant awaiting discovery as in some scientific principle or element, but something ascertained through empirical study, it being a matter for social science. In that regard, perhaps the first principle of a verifiable source would be more apposite here. No one should merely accept the word of someone like myself who was born into and is in the very midst of that system, shoudl they?

Now do you seriously suggest that Encyclopaedia Britannica is a world authority on the subject? If that is the best authority you can cite then i fear you have failed to live up to your own (not unduly harsh) standards. I wont honour the dictionary.com reference with a (derisory) mention -do you think this meets with the aforementioned standard?

Both this entry and Encylopaedia Britanica are guilty of repeating this myth of supremacy without proper research. What is its source? What anthropological credo does it have? If Encylopaedia Britanica is sufficent why do we need Wiki? Who says they are universally correct? Have they never revised theri entries?

If reliance on Encylopaedia Brittanica is sufficient to make authoritive statements on this site about the status of Brahmins in INDIAN socieity then I suppose it would be permissible to rely on pulished Japanese texts for authoritive statements on the British Royalty! Well perhaps less dramatically on Margaret Mead about customs and practices of Samoans - we all know where that is consigned to these days authoritive as it once was! At least MArgaret Mead had carried out a study first. HAs Encylopaedia Brittanica?

I am disappointed that you do not consider the reference on this very site on caste to be pressing reasons for recosidering this entry. Surely you are not suggesting that one of Wiki's own entries is not a "...reputed, reliable and verifiable.." source?

Perhaps you are.

If so, then let me bring to your attention the following learned articles that show the statement on this site to be wrong:

1. http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/caste3;

2. http://www.britishempire.co.uk/article/castesystem.htm

3. http://india.krishna.org/Articles/2000/07/00057.html

You will see that at least the first two of these articles are learned pieces by DISCLOSED authors and would meet the standard of reliable source and original research.

What all these articles are consistent about is the role-dependant nature of the various castes.

In none of the descriptions of the roles for Brahmans is there any reference to them having a pre-eminent or aristocratic role. They are all consistent with that role residing in the Kshatriyas or Rajputs.

The following extracts should bring this point in sharper focus for you:

"As example consider the Brahmin caste. Books by Indologists routinely translate this into priest. But in reality priests have had very low status in India. To give the extreme example, the Mahabrahmin priests, who supervise funeral services, have been "treated much like untouchables". The reality of status is highly paradoxical; the brahmin is respected if he renounces his expected function. The reality runs counter to the claims of generations of Indologists." S KAk

"Although jatis may pay lip service to the Brahmin as an intermediary to the gods when it comes to ritual, each caste considers itself to be the highest. If the Brahmins were to be accepted as the highest caste then other castes would have no hesitation in giving their daughters to the Brahmins. But in reality they do not. The Rajputs consider the Brahmins to be other-wordly or plain beggars; the traders consider the Brahmins to be impractical; and so on. In classical Sanskrit plays the fool is always a Brahmin." S KAk

And this entry from K Hobson that explains Encylopaedia Brittanica"

"Moreover, those Indians who were used as advisors certainly had more than ample opportunity to act in a manner that suited their own or their group's agenda since precedent was based on interpretations of the writings of the various Hindu holy texts. To even a marginally cynical mind this would suggest immense possibilities for graft and corruption. This, in turn, suggests the possibility that the British were manipulated, at least to some degree, by their mainly Brahman informants.

Contrary to what the British appear to have believed, it seems doubtful that the Brahmans were dominant within the material world in pre colonial Indian society. A cursory examination of any of the ruling families quickly shows a dearth families of the Brahmin caste. Rather, one finds that the majority, though by no means all, of rulers were Kshytria and occasionally Vashnia. This suggests that although the Brahmin caste had power in spiritual matters, their power and control within the material world was limited to the amount of influence that they could gain with individual rulers. No doubt there were instances when this was quite considerable but there is also little doubt that there were times when Brahman influence was very weak and insignificant. With this in mind, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where, Brahmans, seeing the ascendancy of British power, allied themselves to this perceived new ruling class and attempted to gain influence through it. By establishing themselves as authorities on the caste system they could then tell the British what they believed the British wanted to hear and also what would most enhance their own position. The British would then take this information, received through the filter of the Brahmans, and interpret it based on their own experience and their own cultural concepts. Thus, information was filtered at least twice before publication. Therefore, it seems certain that the information that was finally published was filled with conceptions that would seem to be downright deceitful to those about whom the information was written. The flood of petitions protesting caste rankings following the 1901 census would appear to bear witness to this. To fully understand how the British arrived at their understanding of Indian society it will now be necessary to look at where British society was during the 19th century in both its concepts of self and of other."

As the article by Hobson observes, the citation from Encyclopaedia Britannica simply has wrongly repeated the deliberate or accidental error under the British regarding the role of Brahmins in Indian society during the colonial era. This arror has survived in the West but is not shared by Indians.

I trust you will now see the very compelling reasons why this statement should be altered.

Additionally, my other criticism of this entry is that it is not dispassionate. Some of the descriptions of Brahmins that are contained in the articles I have referred you to would in my opinion provide a good reason to doubt the accuracy of the more laudatory parts of your entry. this thread should be revised.

I think I have made my point.

I wish Wikipaedia all the best in its strive to become a reliable source of information. Regrettably it will not be for as long as its articles are of this standard. ( I almost feel that after a statement like that i should be signing of as "Angry of Tnubridge Wells!)

Regards

Rajputana 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Max, I assume you have given the article your moderating touch-up, as it were. Many thanks if you have.

Formerly Angry of Tunbridge Wells but now just Barking Mad of ..er...Barking ??? Rajputana 06:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Rajputana. I didn't have time to respond to your argument above and you must pardon me for that. I did modify your additions to the article to be neutral. Thank you for your help in making the article better by providing valid sources for your arguments.

Regards, Max ^{- You were saying?} 07:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: You may be in Barking but why are you still barking mad, mate? Next time I hope you'll be "Happy in Hampstead" or somesuch :-)

Intercaste Marriages

What is the percentage of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages in the Brahmin community? If it is less than 20%, aren't they anti-social? Maaparty 13:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE

It is certainly not commendable to point out that Brahmins, in general that brahmins put forward an opposition on the growth of the dalit community. Present day brahmins trat them as equals and also treat them as equals.Moreover, they also accept the reservations for the dalits. An acton of a few black sheep cannot be attributed to the whole community of which belong many respectable figures. I would also like to add that Brahmins treat the Mahatma and his ideals with utmost respect, today. Vinay Iyer (220.226.20.186) 12:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to decline the above statement by citing the reality that happened in my case. I am from a Dalit community, educated from a reputed institute and earning a handsome money. I fell in love with a girl from Bhramin community. I and the girl had to struggle for 2+yrs to get married. I don't want to blame my father-in-law or anyone from their family, but it is the Bhramin community altogather which made them think that this will not work. Now, everyone in my in-law's family accepted me well. But the initial hesitation they had is quite common because of the Bhramin community's reservation in mind and their perseption about other communities especially on Dalits and other low-castes. Senthil (125.17.25.8) 10:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST

NOTE:THIS ARTICLE IS ONLY MEANT TO EDUCATE THE WORLD ABOUT THE ORIGIN AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE BRAHMIN COMMUNITY PLEASE ENSURE THAT WHATEVER YOU CONTRIBUTE IS RELEVANT TO THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE, AND THE SPACE IS NOT USED FOR PROPAGATING HATRED AGAINST THE COMMUNITY.HOPE EVERYONE TAKES THIS MESSAGE IN PROPER VEIN.

I have to say this because, i believe that the recent changes to article on the main page are not appropriate (particularly the views expressed about the community).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.79.12 (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Profession

Traditionally seeking alms in the name of the God has been the profession of Brahmins.Unsolicited 11:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So all brahmins were beggars? Your bigotry and racism has made your mind clouded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.119.252 (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideas 2008 (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Seeking alms in the name of the God is present in every religion, not necessarily brahmins In Islam, they have this. In Christianity, they have this. Seeking alms does not mean they are beggars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideas 2008 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeking alms came from the Tamil rulers Chera, Chola and Pandiya times. This was before Brahmins Most brahmins in those days (after Chandragupta Mauryas time) were holding civil service positions such as Advisors, Governors, Secretaries, to the Kings or Emperor or some Chief Officer. The Tamil Kings were the ones who gave rice and plantains to the poor Tamil Pulavars (poets). The pulavars (poets) wrote some songs and read in front of the Kings. If the poem was correct and conveyed the right meaning, the poet would get some rice and bananas. On the other hand, if the poem was wrong or plagiarized, the poets were whipped or punished by the sentry at the court, and they can never show up again. [ Poet Kannadasan's special]. The Tamil poets were living in abject poverty. They were the real beggars, begging for a measure of rice and two bananas for survival. That tradition of giving rice and plantains was slowly passed onto Brahmins in the later years [ source: Poet Kannadasan's special ].

Brahmins were landlords or farmers, owning lands. Since some of them were also Advisors to the Chief Officers or Kings or Emperors, they were given certain emoluments to live well comfortably within their means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideas 2008 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This community of people were the only educated ones in the past and hence the documentation of the land, letter converstions and any kind of legal activity in written is been done by them. Everybody had to depend on them for these purposes and since nobody knows the procedures all their wealth had been gradually pulled by this so called educated ones. They always wanted people to be depending on them and hence they become the highly respected community. They took over the properties of the meek ones not by means of their physical strength but my means of cunning education they had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubykhan2008 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

expansion

I removed the Boston Brahmins because they are not "another meaning" - they are merely a demeaning.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.60.109 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

expansion

I'd like to see some of the data from omnipresence added to this page. This discusses the history but none of the tenets and beliefs. Avriette 01:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the Brahmin caste. The omnipresence in that article refers to the concept of Brahman ,'God', Allah, however he/she/it is known. arjunb. 04:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of the word

The word Brahmin is said to literally mean "One who has realised or attempts to realise Brahman".

Wouldn't this make it like a recursive acronym? 208.57.241.56 19:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No. There is a difference between brahmin and brahman(God)

wat a stupid understanding,there is a definitve difference between brahmin and brahman.

eh . Brahma in this context is not the god but "the universe" or the reality. So the literal meaning is "the one who knows the universe" or simply a wise person. there are evidences in mahabharata theat a person outside the case became a brahmin by the strength of his knowledge Jeroje 20:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"code brahmin"

Worth adding that the term "code brahmin" has been applied to the very skilled and numerous programmers originating from india? or that the term has become some sort of sarcastic derogatory term applied to a person of indian descent? See: 72.254.12.134 23:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Brahmins claim to have realised Brahman

"Brahmin is said to literally mean One who has realised or attempts to realise Brahman". I firmly dispute the fact that Brahmins have realised Brahman (pronounced as Brahm or GOD, though both words are similar in pronounciation. They also claim to be the priestly class of Hindus, however, there are numerous examples of other castes who are priests or purohits (mahants)of many temples including the Bhumihar and Rajput commmunity. Several castes have their own priests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.149.79 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Note that the word is derived from Sanskrit and the word mainly referred to the Rishis of the Vedas who HAD realized Brahman and his power. From there the word is derived. Brahmins today continue to try to realize Brahmin, as do other people of other castes.arjunb 04:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Problematic fifth paragraph

The fifth paragraph is in serious need of editing. It is certainly not written with a NPOV; at the least, the claims about "many Brahmins" need to be elaborated and substantiated. What does "many" mean? What evidence is there for these claims, or at least, who is making the claims? I'm not saying that the claims are untrue, just that I don't think an encyclopediad article can include them without further substantiation or citations. The claim about "an increasing percentage of Brahmins" needs similar substantiation. And, the point about the media in the end, as written, seems utterly tangential to the subject of the article.

Again, I'm not taking a stand on the truth of any of these claims. But, as written, the paragraph does not seem to meet Wikipedia standards.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Msridhar (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Historically, Bhramins were migrants from northern region to India. To capitalize and survive, they divided the soceity in the name of varnas. They referred veda as the source. Four varnas they used to divide society are Brahmin (taking care of technical knowledge and spirituality), Kshatriya (protectors of Dharma), Vaishya (mercantile and agricultural class) and Shudra (labour class). They called themselves as Bhramins which they declared as people close to God and so demanded respect. They declared ruling emperors and their community as Kshatriyas and had them at next level. Similarly the general public has been classified as Vaishyas and Shudras based on the work they perform. They campaigned this to others in the name of God and so others had no choice but to accept this because of the fear in God. They controlled the rulers and through them the general public. Some people opposed this and they were forced to stay outside villages and Bhramins declared them as untouchables who are now renamed as Dalits. The caste was based on the birth. A person's birth decides whether he is a bhramin or other varnas. the darker the skin of an individual is also said to effect the caste an individual is in. Lighter skinned families are in higher castes.

This is poorly written anti-brahmin nonsense. The first sentence is referencing the Aryan invasion theory. Gentic studies show the inter-relatedness of Indian populations. At the least it is disputed. Varna refers to color, but nothing of skin color is said. Author further states, system based purely on fear of God. Where's proof? All societies have divided internally, and used religion for such purposes. There is no reason to believe Dalits were opponent of caste, though they suffered from it. Max Weber states that dalits arose from tribal groups on the outskirts of growing hindu communites. This is an example of ostracism and exclusion of external elements. Compare the previous description to assimilation (Spanish half-breeds, Muslim miscengantion with conquered women) and extermination (English in Americas). Again authors statements are questionable, at least. Fianlly, skin tone disagrees with genetics and is skin color, birth, or northern invaders the basis. Author contradicts self. This paragraph is highly disagreeable. An honest and nuanced article on caste is good, but is this

The fool that made the edit is a fool. As they say "fools don't see reason." Edit it if you find it objectionable. To defend the truth, you don't have to convince anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.112.97 (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Famous Brahmins

Need to organize this section to make it more interesting. Perhaps add 2-3 words for each individual to mention the contributions. Spellings need to confirm with existing articles, most people already have articles.--ISKapoor 06:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph badly written

I am not aware of the accuracy of the content of the first paragraph, but it seems to be filled with grammatical and spelling errors. Would someone who knows the topic well enough make an attempt to clean it up, please?

The first para is now accurate, I have removed the questionable word "transient". --ISKapoor 02:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Non Brahmin Names

In some categories (like: others), non-brahmin names (singh), mentioned. If this page describes brahmin categiry, these names of castes other than brahmin should be removed.

Basawon Singh was indeed a Bhumihar Brahmin.--ISKapoor 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for list of brahmins

Propose to move the list of brahmins to a new list article Babub 14:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Panchagauda and Panchdravida should be ordered from West to East.
• Brief (1-3 words) description for each prominent brahmin.

--ISKapoor 02:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Classification of Brahmins

The first classification of Brahmins might have felt during the Vedic age itself. Consequently, the concept of Gotra came into existence. The gotra concept was probably propounded during the later Vedic period. It’s a system of classification and identification of various families and indicating common descent mainly from eight ‘root’ rishis.

Then as the 'Aryanization' and “Sanskritization’ of the ‘Indian sub-continent’ procedded, it might have felt that the whole Brahmin community (by then spread almost over the whole sub-continent) should be further subdivided. Thus the Brahmins were divided into two main regional sub-groups. Brahmins residing north of Vindhyachal- Satpura mountain range (this mountain range roughly divides the north-south expansion of Indian sub-continent) were called as ‘Gaur’ Brahmins whereas the inhabitants of south of the range were known as ‘Dravida’ Brahmins. Sanskrit was still considered as the main language of literary and administrative activities during those times. It was the main language of the courts of the kings and the primary mode of communication among the literates throughout the sub-continent. Most of the literary works in astronomy, astrology, mathematics, economics, political science, literature and general used to be written in this language. However, a few other languages like Prakrit. Pali etc., in the north and Tamil (old) in the south existed side-by-side. Yet those languages seemed to be considered as the languages of masses.

As the devlopment of languages (and / or dialects) in different regions of the sub-continent shaped, Sanskit started being replaced as the language of courts and literary activities. That further prompted the classification of Brahmins. Thus another division among Brahmin communties on geographical and linguistic basis took place.

(1) ‘Pancha-Gaur’, i.e., five main sub-groups of Brahmins stemming from the erstwhile “Gaur’ sub-group. Considering west, north-west to east, these were:

• Saraswat Brahmins
• Gaur Brahmins
• Kanyakubja Brahmins
• Maithili Brahmins
• Utkal Brahmins

The ‘Gaur Brahmins’ group mentioned here appears to be the remnants after other groups parted away from the primary ‘Gaur’ group. It is to be noted that 'Gaur' not 'Gauda' was the first parent sub-group of Brahmins in the north and still many Brahmin families continue to be identified under 'Gaur' group.

(2) ‘Pancha-Dravida’, i.e., five main sub-groups of Brahmins originating from the earlier mentioned “Dravida’ sub-group. These sub-groups seem to be reckon with regional languages.

• Maharashtrian Brahmins
• Kannada Brahmins
• Telgu Brahmins
• Tamil Brahmins
• Malayali Brahmins

But the parting away of Brahmin families from their parent sub-group (Sub-groups under Pancha-Gaur and Panch-Dravida) continued and the process generated scores of sub-castes mainly on the possible grounds:

(1) Since Vedic times, most Brahmins had been leading simple and ascetic lives. Thus their sustenance of livelihood and intellectual pursuits depended mainly on contributions or help provided by the kings, big landlords etc. That’s why, they had much mobility also. But some Brahmin families remained confined to smaller geographical locations because they might have availed the financial assistance for long time at those places. In some cases, their locational existence confined to even a couple of districts. Such Brahmins, however, originally belonging to a particular parent sub-group, might have thought of identifying themselves separately from the other members of the parent sub-group.

(2) Some Brahmin families moved to totally different geographical area from the bounds of their parent sub-group and accordingly might have classified themselves separately from the other members of the parent sub-group.

(3) Many lines of descent from the root rishis were grouped separately. Accordingly, the root gotras were divided into ganas (subdivisions) and each gana was further divided into group of some families, known as sub-gana. Since then the term gotra have frequently been applied to the ganas and sub-ganas.. Some Brahmin families, having ganas and sub-ganas as their gotras stemming only from one root rishi, might have classified themselves separately from the other members of the parent sub-group.

(4) Some Brahmins families paid their adherence mainly to only one God, say, Shiva or Vishnu. So such families might have thought of identifying themselves separately from the other members of the parent sub-group.

---

--Geopgeop 07:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

About the division:

karNaaTakaashcha tailaMgaa draaviDaa mahaaraashhTrakaaH, gurjaraashcheti pa~nchaiva draaviDaa vindhyadakshiNe || saarasvataaH kaanyakubjaa gauDaa utkalamaithilaaH, panchagauDaa iti khyaataa vindhsyottaravaasinaH ||

Definition of Gauda:

brahmakshetraM guDaaraNyaM matsyapaa~nchaalamaathuraaH eshha brahmarshhi desho vai brahmaavarta samambaram.h || brahmakshetraM kurukshetraM brahmadeshaH prakathyate aadigaudarshhideshaantaM haryaaraNyamihochyate ||

--ISKapoor 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

".Brahmins are popularly known as Tantriks and they are considered very dis-honest and in-human people."

The above two lines seem to be highly opinionated and disparaging.

--PK Kulkarni 23:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this page. Brahmins are only those people from the Hindu society who have proven knowledge & are dedicated to upliftment of society. This page should be considered work of vandalism for wrongly representing the facts.

Todays Brahmins are more likely to be Dalit for following reasons:

1. Started eating meat 2. Do not refrain from sexual acts 3. They are the most corrupt caste in India 4. Number of sexual crimes committed by Brahmin sages has risen. 5. A temple presiet who is considered to be a ture Brahmin is also involved in sexual crime 6. Since brahmin has become leader of any country, they country has fallen down 7. Responsible for misguiding people 8. Where ever there is a brahmin poverty rides in. Ex: Chicago, USA 9. All political leaders of India are trainned by so called educated brahmins 10. A iIndian hindu cannot even win a gold medal in Olympics 11. 90% of Hindu society is undeveloped and overty ridden 12. India as a country is ranked ahead of pakistan in crime against women 13. Brahmin love watching pornography and cricket which is against the committment offered by a true brahmins

I think brahmins are ranked even lower than the Dalits because they think they are nobel where as they are corrupt and unfaithfull. In ancient times due to corrupt practices of Brahmins, India has been always defeated. Companies like Infosys has claimed false gains just by passing cheap labour to international front. Infosys top executive a Brahmin was removed for a sexual crime in USA. Even today Indians are not respected internationally only because of Brahmin and other castes. Brahmins are in true sense lower than the dalits. Pre-historic brahmins used to live in forest and gain knowledge through practise. Today brahmins work only for their own benifit and are always greedy. I am myself a brahmin but never have been treated fairly by my own caste although i am wealthy. I have seen brahmins, and other castes in India accepting bribe for giving jobs. A brahmin will never respect a talented person and will always look for a brahmin and same has perculated in the Hindu society. A brahmin should be compared to Jews and Arabs in religious practise. Many brahmins have been prosecuted in the recent times and no one likes them.

I think the article presented is baised and does not give the correct picture of a Brahmin. I am sad to say that the word Brahmin has been corrupted and with this people who call themselves brahmins are going to pull india and its people down. Even if your ancestors might be brahmins it is always better to call oneself a common man than a Brahmin. Call yourself a Brahmin after you have proven your worth through your own struggle and not through family inheritance.

PK Kulkarni, United Kingdom

First you should learn to write a little English before you start expressing your bigotry towards anyone else. - Peace.

First, why are people sharing their personal experiences here? Second, I would like to share some details as the Classification of Brahmins does not seem to be fully complete and the reference for classification given also cannot be termed complete. To find the classification and origin, we must look to the origin of first settlements which is mentioned as [Bramhavarta] Manusmriti Chapter 2, Shloka 17. Even if one assumes that Aryans were foreigners, and later settled in India, this was the place of original habitats, as is also mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana Kishkindha Kand. This is also The First division, due to reasons rightly mentioned above by [geopgeop], was into Davik and Sarav. Daviks reside on north of devika river which is now modern nepal, bhutan and tibet regions. Saravs resided on the north of saryu river.It was the Saravs who later sub divided into Panch Gaud and Panch Dravid and are now the Brahmins in India. The original details are mentioned in Mahabharata VanParv Chapter 82, Shloka 102 and also in Padma Purana. Also, Saryupareen Brahmins[Sarvariya] have been wrongly clubbed as sub division of KanyaKubjaKannauj-ia which is neither correct nor verifiable. Notwithstanding the above, this article should have only objective verifiable facts and neither gratification nor denouncing of any community or people, which sadly it seems, it is struggling to maintain. Girish.shukla 22:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge Hindu Brahmins are the most efficient peoples in South Asia and rest of the World. What India is today (its success and progress) is mainly attributed to brahmin leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi. Brahmin supremacy will always embrace all other sects and strive to bring South Asia in a progressive track. Svr014 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

POV

I've tagged the Persecution section with {{npov}}, because of sentences like "deliberately vilified and a propaganda always runs against them" and "academia has largely glossed over the contribution". If somebody cleans up, please feel free to remove the tag. utcursch | talk 11:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on some names!

I was just passing by and noted something.

I have a doubt about a couple of names given as examples of Brahmins:

Notable among them, Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar' was a Thakur (Kshatriya) not a Brahmin and I think Tagore also stands for Thakur in Bengali.

Can someone please confirm and edit accordingly.

--Bobby Awasthi 11:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thakur is written by Rajputs in the beginning of their names and not at the end like Brahmins. Even Singh title is written by some Brahmins in eastern U.P. and Bihar. Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar' was very much a Brahmin. Rabindranath Tagore was also a Brahmin. In fact, they have been among the greatest of all Brahmins. Please type their name in Google or other web-portals like wikipedia and you would get a lot of material on them. All these doubts show that you need to read a lot! But anyway, don't be disheartened, and make a modest beginning.

Merge From Telugu Brahmins

The Telugu Brahmins article is small, and contains information already found in this article. It could easily be integrated into a subsection of the article, or if non-notable, deleted. Sfacets 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

article prejudiced a little towards brahmins

After reading this article, two points come to my mind. 1) the article is obviously written with a pro-brahmin mind-set. I am not aginst brahmins, but the article does not meet the standard of objectivity and unprejudiced tone that wikipedia articles are expected to have. No detail mention about the atrocities commited on the lower caste by brahmins has been made. 2)Again, nowhere is it mentioned that the original brahmins come from a non-native indian stock of population. Instead, this fact is constatntly denied by brahmin intellectuals with media access. We must remember that Brahmins, even though 3-4% in population, still hold lot of power in terms of position, money and media, and are thus capable of bending any opinion in their favour. I present a very strong scientific evidence that points towards the origin of brahmins http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/11/6/994

1. There's enough proof that Brahmins arent forign overlords
2. You are right, sadly corrupt Brahmins hold the power over Congress and CPI(M). THe true followers of Brahman are usually not Brahmin.

Bakaman _Bakatalk 08:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Header and subsections - possible duplication created

The header section for this article was disproportionately large, so I moved several of the paragraphs to different subsections. I didn't want to meddle too much in a controversial topic I don't know much about, so I didn't edit any of the text. The result of this is that I've probably created some duplicate text (particularly the history section). It would be appreciated if someone could comb through and correct any duplications. --Spyforthemoon 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a word about untouchablity

brahmins practised untouhablity on dalits and so on and discriminated against others not a word about this.while others like dalits have ben killed not a single brahmin was even hurt during the anti-brahmin movement.In sharp contrast to daily killing of dalits ADYARBOY

See POV and WP:OR . If there are people that discriminate against dalits, its their own fellow dalits not Brahmins (who were always a persecuted minority).Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman.Adyarboy is talking about history.Dalits have been discrminated. It has been going on for thousands of years .It is only in the later part of this century.That they gained entry into temples and in education.Brahmins did practice untouchablity over the centuries.Today it has changing but looking at it historically the answer is surely yes Harlowraman

If one looks at the caste system, they would see Brahmin > Ksatriya > Vaisya > Shudra > Dalit. There are four degrees of separation between Brahmin and Dalit. The Brahmins were also never rich or powerful in history (temples funded by KShatriya/Vaisya) and did not set the rules. They did not have the power over who ran the temples, becasue the Kings were actually running the show.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that discrimination against anyone including Dalits is a sin. The Indian society seems to have paid very badly for this sin during medievial period and would regret this sin the more the farther they go in future. Brahmins were probably helpless but were, on whomsoever's cost, able to use opportunities for their existence and survival amidst totally new and changing environment. But realities when faced standstilly prove to be very hard to digest. Better to complement shoulder to a shoulder rather than climb over it to inactivate.....rojerwlson

Untouchability practiced by Brahmins? No Way.

I agree with above comments, though I have seen many of brahman lineage committing, this irrational behavior. However I suspect this all started with realization for the requirement for good hygiene by some Munis (thinkers). Some sections of society were considered more unclean. Even today, most brahmans are obsessed with cleanliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.235.180 (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Present day Brahmin is a Caste of Hindus

The Brahmins are no more practicing the Varnas Dharma is a true sense so Brahmin is only a caste like a Rajput, Chamar, Bhangi etc. There are thousands of caste in Hindu Religion Hindushudra 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC) User is bannedBakaman 17:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Are Brahmins substitute for sanyasies (sages) for whom everybody have a great regard becouse of their (of sages) broadmindedness, undiscriminatory and unselfish approach toward worldly affairs, etc. etc. was so overwhelming that everybody tended to bow down in regard to yogies and sanyasies(sages). It seems that Brahmins and sanyasies are not the same thing.... rogervilsn

This is not a Propganda page for Brahmins and all the facts should be written.Whether it is good or bad.Then why are you allowing people to deleteing when one talks about Untouchabilty.It is a fact that Brahmins are the forefathers of this Sin and even today they discriminate people. This is fact.DONT DELETE THIS.WILL ENSURE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS A BALANCE ONE.Not a propagandapage.Manu Sasthra the holy bible of Brahmins talks about Racisim so what is wrong in saying so when Brahmins practise that. Jakep. Brahmins kept the power and education to themselves in the name of GOD.

About sages, answer to rogervilsn

Not necessarily, The Vedic religion exists at least since 1500 BC. The idea of Brahmin is not by birth but by their knowledge of the Brahman/scriptures. However, almost anybody was allowed to be a sage/sanyasi in the last 25 years of their age (actually when they deem fit but age wise after 70 years). In the part of life which was called VanPrashtha (Van = forest and Prashta means "going to") and afterwards all Hindus (actually Sanatan Dharmis) were believed to be sages, learners, philosophers. However, Brahmins were bound to this concept more than anybody else, as Voltaire said, Brahmins were extraordinary in accepting and following desciplines that they used to set for others. And they were more strict to themselves than others.Skant 17:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Question and objection for Buddhipriya

I quoted Voltaire and his book as my resource. Can you tell me why you were so quick to remove whatever i added? If I do not hear back from you, I will re-add whatever i added.Skant 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.235.180 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 

Thanks for getting in touch. I think this is the material you are asking about: [1]. In that particular edit there are a number of assertions made regarding historical facts for which no WP:RS are provided. A citation to Voltaire may be appropriate for an opinion regarding philosophy, and if you provide a better reference to a specific edition of his work with a page reference that then becomes a verifiable reference for something that Voltaire said. Voltaire would not be considered a reliable source for Indology, so to support any statements about historical facts you may want to provide additional references to recognized experts in the field of Indology. Hope this helps you see my point of view. Buddhipriya 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying back. To answer your first point, I don't think page number is needed at all. The heading "Brahmin" in Voltaire's book "Dictionary of 'philosophy" spans just a little more than 1 page, so heading should be sufficient (also this heading is especially for what he wanted to say about Brahmins). For second part, why will i need approval of any indologist (and who are valid indologists by the way?), to state what Voltair thought about Brahmins. And the last question will be, what can be a good reason to not to write in an article about Brahmins, what Voltaire thought about them. Let me know what you think about these points and I will reply back.24.6.237.22 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)forgot to login earlier,Skant 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, a citation to Voltaire may be appropriate for an opinion regarding philosophy, and if you provide a better reference to a specific edition of his work with a page reference that then becomes a verifiable reference for something that Voltaire said. Voltaire would not be considered a reliable source for Indology, so to support any statements about historical facts you may want to provide additional references to recognized experts in the field of Indology. Hope this helps you see my point of view. Buddhipriya 18:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi

Indira Gandhi had converted to Islam for marriage to Feroz Khan (who later took surname Gandhi from his maternal ancestry). She should not be listed as a Brahmin. If not replied in a week, I will go ahead and remove the name myself.

Regards, --Bobby Awasthi 07:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Feroz Khan took his surname from his maternal ancestry? You get your facts right frist. BIGOT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.119.98 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi had converted to Islam for marriage? That is a totally incorrect information.

It shows how ignorant people are and it clearly shows their lack of knowledge. Indira Gandhi never changed her religion. She never married a muslim. She married a Parsi. Feroz Gandhi, not Feroz Khan.

Name is wrong, religion is wrong.Whoever wrote that Indira Gandhi was a muslim, has not read the Indian History correctly.

She got her name 'Gandhi' from her husband 'Feroz Gandhi' and added to her last name Indira. Prior to that she was known as Indira Priyadarshini,daughter of Jawahar Lal Nehru.

Feroz Gandhi was a popular journalist, at that time, even though he had differences of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Join 2008 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Third Paragraph History

Historically, Bhramins were migrants from northern region to India. To capitalize and survive, they divided the soceity in the name of varnas. They referred veda as the source. Four varnas they used to divide society are Brahmin (taking care of technical knowledge and spirituality), Kshatriya (protectors of Dharma), Vaishya (mercantile and agricultural class) and Shudra (labour class). They called themselves as Bhramins which they declared as people close to God and so demanded respect. They declared ruling emperors and their community as Kshatriyas and had them at next level. Similarly the general public has been classified as Vaishyas and Shudras based on the work they perform. They campaigned this to others in the name of God and so others had no choice but to accept this because of the fear in God. They controlled the rulers and through them the general public. Some people opposed this and they were forced to stay outside villages and Bhramins declared them as untouchables who are now renamed as Dalits. The caste was based on the birth. A person's birth decides whether he is a bhramin or other varnas. the darker the skin of an individual is also said to effect the caste an individual is in. Lighter skinned families are in higher castes.

This is poorly written anti-brahmin nonsense. The first sentence is referencing the Aryan invasion theory. Gentic studies show the inter-relatedness of Indian populations. At the least it is disputed. Varna refers to color, but nothing of skin color is said. Author further states, system based purely on fear of God. Where's proof? All societies have divided internally, and used religion for such purposes. There is no reason to believe Dalits were opponent of caste, though they suffered from it. Max Weber states that dalits arose from tribal groups on the outskirts of growing hindu communites. This is an example of ostracism and exclusion of external elements. Compare the previous description to assimilation (Spanish half-breeds, Muslim miscengantion with conquered women) and extermination (English in Americas). Again authors statements are questionable, at least. Fianlly, skin tone disagrees with genetics and is skin color, birth, or northern invaders the basis. Author contradicts self. This paragraph is highly disagreeable. An honest and nuanced article on caste is good, but is this the place for it.

Who are brahmins???

I am pointing the texts from Bhagwat Gita.

He whose mind is fixed in Yoga sees equality everywhere; he sees his self as abiding in all beings and all beings in his self. Gita 6.29

He who, by reason of the similarity of selves everywhere, sees the pleasure or pain as the same everywhere- that Yogin, O Arjuna, is deemed as the highest. Gita 6.32

For supreme happiness comes to the Yogin whose mind is at peace, who is free of evil, from whom the Rajas has departed, and who become the Brahman. Gita 6.27

It appears that from time to time people are continuously trying to degrade the quality of texts recited by GOD and cunningly trying to subside the truth. If people are trying to do this for the sake of being called a superior by other fellow communities let me be frank, then that makes you no more a Brahmin. Just wearing the thread does not make one a Brahmin.

For supreme happiness comes to the Yogin whose mind is at peace, who is free of evil, from whom the Rajas has departed, and who become the Brahman. Gita 6.27

For the sake of letting being called superior you all are subsiding the truth and that make you people NON-BRAHMINS clearly from the above verses. You cannot be a Brahmin because you are following the strict mode of the life for the sake of being called a superior person. Even Rakshasas did taps but they were not Brahmins because they did taps for the sake of getting undue advantages. So, what are you all trying to do?

A Brahmin is a person who is away from all the Rajas, are you ones who are trying to prove you are superior a BRAHMIN? Even if you want to be called superior that makes you selfish and does not make you a Brahmin.

This is a request that you all followers of GOD will only write the true meaning and not try and make us BRAHMINS look like fools among the world. You think those westerns are going to be please looking at what you all are trying to do? They are going to call all of us fools. Because of you people the entire Brahmins in India will suffer. BalanceRestored 08:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is that you are pointing to mate, balance ain't one of them! Your contribution above is nothing more than a god bothering, incoherent rant. I can only assume that it is your hand under the guise of restoring balance that has restored some of the nonsense that was there earlier this year when I first took objection to the entry on this subject. It is outrageous that people like you can hijack entries on this site and undermine what is otherwise a laudable aim of Wikipaedia to be a reliable reference source.Rajputana 06:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned --> The term brahmin , brahma , brahman ,are originated from sanscrit root brah .But present day historians remembers us not to confuse with brahman and the creator brahma .Why? .This the mystery behind the absense of Brahma temples in india. In Rig veda there is no brahma and siva as a god is emerging only in shukla yajurveda.One can trace their primordial form in Brhmanaspathi and Rudra.The creater in vedic period is Viswakarma prjapathi, hiranya garbha or Purusha.A popular sculpture of brahma emerging from the navel of vishnu is a later adition by Vaishnavities.Actually this concept is seen in Viswakarma Suktha in rig veda 10-82 and second anuvaka of Purusha suktha.

Vasishtapuranam-3RD-A

suvarna sanakara cheaivo sanathana ithi

smrutha muni sreshtha abhuvana cha sha

prakethanakrushic viswakarma mukhothbhootha

brahmana pancha keerthitha.

In this sense creative people all over the world are the perfect brahmin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.187.215 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add my views on that.

First of all, let me make it clear that Bhagwad Geeta did not talk about Brahmins at all. Bhagwad Geeta is the essence of Mahabharatha. The entire Mahabharatha talks about War and nothing but war only. Kshathriyaas and Yadhukulaas were involved in Mahabharatha.

Arjuna, Dharma, Sakadevan, Nakula, and Bheema Sena are all Kshathriyaas. King Dhuriyodhanaa and his members (100 of them) were all Kshathriyaas, except Karnan. Nobody knows Karnan's caste. He was discriminated by the teacher Dhronar, who refused to teach him the skills. Dhronar taught Arjuna but refused to teach Karna. Even in those days, discrimination was prevalent. Finally, Dhuriyodhana helped Karnan, by creating a position for him and made him the King of Anga Desam.

Lord Krishna, is not a brahmin but a yaadhawa or yadhukula vamsam. Lord Krishna, who was a yadhawa (yadhu kulam) or edaya caste helped Arjuna throughout the war and saved the Pancha Paandavaas (five of them) from Dhuriyodhanan and from Karnan in particular. Actually, Karnan belonged to Arjuna group but his birth mother abandoned Karnan and he was adopted by someone else from the Dhuriyodhana side. Karnan's adopted parents belonged to a lower caste. So Karnan joined Dhuriyodhana who gave 100% support financially, psychologically, and socially so to speak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Join 2008 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A brahmin is ONE WHO DESIRES KNOWLEDGE ABOVE ALL ELSE - Brah (Bra:) (sanskrit for all of existance) + Man (mind or thought center of a human mind). So a mind that wants to know all is a Brahman - D Chakraborty Gautama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.224.216 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Brahmins were not the Ruling Class

I would like to submit some points for consideration.

1. Any book on History of India would reveal that of the thousands of Kings and dynasties which ruled India in the last 3000 years very very few have been Brahmins. The Kings came from all castes. The Nandas and the Mouryas belonged to the so called fourth caste. The later Guptas belonged to the third caste. Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharj was not a Brahmin. I mention the number of the castes as they are normally written. I do not believe in the system and consider it to be the curse of Indian society. The Hindu caste sustem in that way is peculiar and different from the class/caste systems in Japan, England and othe places. It is supposed to have been created by a class who were not rulers. The Brahmins made themselves beggars forever by not giving themselves any profession which will earn money and depending on Dhana. (Alms). I think a specific mention of the Brahmins not being a ruling class in the article would be appropriate.

2. The class of people who were entrusted with the oral tradition of recitation of the Vedas were called Brahmins. This class of people carried on the tradition and kept the Vedas alive till it was written. Max Muller called them Stotriyas in his book "India What can it teach us?" This class was not by birth but by education. I base my statemnent on the fact that the Grreat Rishi Vyasa or Veda Vyasa who compiled the Vedas was the son of Sathyavati a Fisherwoman. Though his father was a Brahmin, he was not a Brahmin by birth. (as per the Smiritis). Rishi Valmiki who wrote the Ramayana was not a Brahmin. Even today this preservation of the Oral traditoon of the Vedas is considered to be the primary duty of a Brahmin. A mention of this tradition and duty in the artcle would be appropriate.

3. Please note that I am not claiming any superiority for the Brahmins nor denying any of the countless atrocities committed in the name of caste. Only that those are not relevant here.--Sankarrukku 06:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my points regarding brahmins.

One who knows Brahmam is a Brahmin. Brahmins were the only ones who learned the languages such as Sanskrit, grandham, etc..That is the reason why the German scholar, Max Muller, came to India, learned and read sanskrit language and incorporated some of the sanskrit words into German. I can give a simple example. The word 'Vaaganam' means vehicle in sanskrit. The same word 'Wagon' also means vehicle in German. We have VolksWagon. That is just one example. There are several sanskrit words that are used in German language.

Talking about rulers, some of the Indian rulers -Chandragupta Mauryas were Brahmins. They were very successful. That is why Gupta's period was known as Golden Age.(Indian History). Later others came to power, not necessarily brahmins. Then by the sixteenth century, the Moghul came to rule India. The only Muslim ruler who was successful was Akbar. There was a story that one of Akbar's wives was a Brahmin. That is why Akbar was extremely nice to Hindus. We might have read several stories about Akbar and Birbal. Again, not all muslim rulers were successful. Aurangzeb was the ruler, who could not stay in power too long. He was responsible for the culmination of Moghul empire and the beginning of its decay (Indian History). India was so big that many Muslim rulers felt that they could not rule such as big country. So they let the British take over. That is how East India Company came into existence.

Valmiki was not a brahmin. Lord Rama was not a brahmin, but a Kshatriya. Kshthriyas have similar rituals like brahmins, but they are not brahmins. In Dasavatharam (devotional story), the avatar that came before Rama Avatar is Parasuaram Avatar, who was a Brahmin. Parasurama, one of the avatars of Vishnu, went on killing all the ksathriyas. King Dasaratha was scared. He was getting married every year to avoid the death penalty by Parasurama. Then came Lord Rama, who took over all the powers of destruction from Parasurama and let him go free without harming any Kshathriyas. The Kshathriyas lived in the next "Krishna Avatar" too.

Lord Rama is not a brahmin, but he is worshipped by all hindus including brahmins. Lord Krishna is not a brahmin, but he is worshipped by all hindus including brahmins. whereas King Ravana was a Brahmin. Does anyone worship Ravana? No. Is there a temple for Ravana? No. King Ravana, a brahmin but a bad guy. Lord Rama, the good man, a Kshathriya. But a virtuous, good king Rama, a kshathriya killed a bad guy, Ravan, a brahmin.

I don't understand that logic behind Anti-brahmin slogan. People who call themselves, anti-brahmins celebrate Ravana Leela, who was a brahmin and criticize Rama who was not a brahmin.

It is not the caste that matters. It is not the religion that matters. It is the individual who committed the act, good or bad. I don't understand why some people associate the religion with acts committed by the individuals. Religion has nothing to do with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideas 2008 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

'Brahmin' : Etymology

I had given correct etymology of the term 'Brahmin' , based upon Sir Monier-Williams, but DAB is replacing it with a wrong POV and WP:OR of his own in spite my requests in Edit summary and on his talk page. I do not want an edit war, and therefore, leave a comment here, requesting editors to consult Sir Monier-Williams whom I cited. Moreover, I had added "esp. Hindi" because south Indian languages no not remove the last vowel as in modern colloquial Hindi. But my correct version is being removed by DAB, who has issued a fresh threat on his talk page of a topic ban on me merely on order to preserve his wrong and unsourced statements in the lead of this article. - Vinay Jha ^Talk 13:14, 23 August 2007

I think citing the MW page should be sufficient to buttress your definition.Bakaman 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have compared the entries for this term in MW, Apte, and Macdonell and find some notation differences in MW that explain why Vinay has been insisting on the Vedic accent issue. I am going to try to add some additional citations that will show the variations and try to source the etymology more clearly. This may take multiple edits. I think that there have been some conclusions drawn regarding what MW says that are not verifiable, so I will adjust wording somewhat. It is true that MW preserves the Vedic intonation as Vinay noted, but I do not think it is relevant to the interpretation, and if you examine the Devanagari itself as given by Apte and Macdonell, you see that the actual dictionary word entries do not make any note of the intonation. In any case, the intonation is irrelevant to classical use of the term. There is no dispute that MW considered preservation of the accent important, as he discusses this issue on pp. xviii of his introduction, citing various examples and Paninian rules that show how words vary depending on Vedic accent. MW notes that the accent is found only in the very oldest texts, and was subject to variation, which is why he omitted it entirely in the first edition of his work. He added accents for some entries in later edition, but also notes that use of the accents in inconsistent in those later editions and is often omitted in cross-references. Macdonell also preserves accent for some words. The actual accent used by MW for the word in question is the macron (indicating a long vowel) with an acute accent superimposed (indicating the Vedic tone). That character does not exist in most fonts found on user systems unless they have a Vedic font installed. Thus representation of it is problematic. I have kept the simple acute accent but it is not correct. I think it would be better to simply delete the Vedic tonal mark entirely and just use the IAST (which does not include notation for tones). I will look at this again in another source and see if I can do more with it in the next few days, but I would like to hear from Vinay regarding the edits made thus far. Buddhipriya 08:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In working on this I noticed that some better disambiguation needs to be done with Brahmana to clarify that it is the neuter noun based on Brāhmaṇaṃ as opposed to Brahmin, based on the masculine noun Brāhmaṇaḥ. This is a good example of where article titles in some cases would be more clear if the correct IAST were used. Buddhipriya 06:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have clarified some of the points in my recent edits and edit summaries. The Classical and modern terms for Brahmin arose from the nominal Vedic form which had last syllable accented and ocuurred in masculine form only. The other form (adjective) is derivative and went out of use in Classical Sanskrit and modern vernaculars ; and it is this adjective form which has neuter (and feminine) forms Buddhipriya speaks of. There are two views of native grammarians about origin of words in Sanskrit, one is from verbs and another regards some nouns to be primordial, but none of the views regards adjectives to be primordial. Hence, the purvodātta (first syllable accented) form (adjective) was a derivative of the nominal form. Whether this nominal form was primordial or was derived from verb root is irrelevant for this article. The adjective form (last syllable accented) need not be included in this article, but I did not remove it because some editors were confused.

There is confusing sentence in the lead : "Monier-Williams defines the word "Brahmin" as an adjective meaning "belonging or relating to Brahmā...; 'possessing sacred knowledge'".[4]". It was added by some previous editor, who was beguiled by the superficial similarity between Sanskrit brahmin and English Brahmin and imagined that the English form might have been derived from Sanskrit brahmin. This statement may lead to confusion and needs to be removed, but I feared a useless edit war.

Cf. MW page 738, col-1, where brahmán is used in the sense of English Brahmin ; this form still needs to be included in the citations given in the lead; even Classical texts used this form frequently (esp. in singular interjection, form of 'Brahmā'). -Vinay_Jha 09:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we we are gradually working toward a more correct representation of what the sources say, but I am concerned that you are continuing to add WP:OR to the actual citations. You made some changes to the specific citations of what is in the dictionaries, which I will revert. Please do not rewrite quotations unless you are correcting them against the original source to fix errors. The first step in building these articles is simply to get a clear picture of what reliable secondary sources say about the subject. I have been transcribing the actual entries from the dictionaries to show that there is some variation in their listings of the source entries. The two sources that use Devanagari for this are Apte and Macdonell, which have slightly different methods for representation of nominal forms (involving use of visarga or anusvara to denote grammatical gender for some entries). There is no dispute about the fact that MW shows the accent, but the real question is the relevance of that fact to the semantics of the word. If you examine the usage of the term in Indian books written in English, such as Majumdar's The History and Culture of the Indian People, volume 1, p. 451, you see that the normal practice in using the term in texts is to not use the accent. We also have the rendering issue related to the font, which is still unstandardized within Wikipedia, and which cannot be correctly displayed by most user computers. The IAST specification does not include Vedic accents. Proposals to add Vedic accents to the Unicode specification have been put forward in the past, but they are not part of the IAST method of romanization. I will restore the citations to their correct form and add additional examples of usage in other works. Can you help me understand why you think that the issue of accent is so important for this term?

The sentence "Monier-Williams defines the word 'Brahmin' as an adjective meaning "belonging or relating to Brahmā...; 'possessing sacred knowledge'"." was added by me, and it is clearly relevant, as it is the only actual dictionary entry in any of the three dictionaries defining the term "Brahmin", which is the spelling used as the title for the article.

I added the material about the term "brahman" from MW pp. 737-738 as was suggested by Vinay. Buddhipriya 19:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay Jha's Reply : Buddhipriya is perhaps the best editor in this article. I was sorry to find Buddhipriya's comment about me "You are continuing to add WP:OR to the actual citations .... You made some changes to the specific citations of what is in the dictionaries, which I will revert...... do not rewrite quotations" , which is so vague that I failed to guess at which point Buddhipriya felt me to be in the wrong. Perhaps I committed too many sins to be cited clearly. Let me try to find.

(1) "brāhmaṇá as (noun)" which Buddhipriya changed to "brāhmaṇa , with first and last syllables showing Vedic accents, as a noun". I had accurately cited MW, but Buddhipriya misunderstood MW . Both first and last syllables in this word can never be accented at the same time. I had guessed Buddhipriya may be perplexed by MW's shorthand, that is why I had referred to 15 occurrences of this word in the RV. In RV one will find that whenever last syllable is accented, initial syllable is unaccented, and then the meaning is always "(noun, masculine), a Brahmin.. etc.". Buddhipriya's insertion "first and last syllables showing Vedic accents" is WP:OR and quite ungrammatical.

(2) It was the following statement which Buddhipriya imagined to be my WP:OR put forth dishonestly by me in the name of MW : Both forms, with last and first syllables showing Vedic accent, have their earliest occurrences in Rgveda (-MW) occurring 15 times.

The clause "occurring 15 times" was not attributed to MW, but was counted from the fifth volume of RV Pune Edition . I never saw sourcing of frequency counts by any author, hence I avoided reference to Pune edition here. As for the remaining sentence, both accented forms of the term in question (Brāhmana) had already been cited from MW, and MW has clearly cited RV and AV for both these forms (p.741, middle). Where is my WP:OR ? Use of the 'earliest' for RV ? Is RV latest ? I had not cited in direct speech, but in indirect speech I summed up what MW actually said or implied.

Buddhipriya's another question is " why you think that the issue of accent is so important for this term" . We are discussing etymology which cannot be determined by normal practice of historians or politicians, but by rules of grammar. Etymology of Sanskrit words cannot be determined if we omit the Vedic sources, and we cannot understand the Vedas if we disregard accents. For instance, the word indra-śatru has two meanings, almost opposite to each other, depending upon which part is accented : (1).Vrittāsura as a śatru of Indra, and (2).Surya as another śatru of Vrittāsura whose first śatru is Indra) . Buddhipriya's question "why you think that the issue of accent is so important for this term" may spring from misinterpretation of MW ("with first and last syllables showing Vedic accents" in Brāhmana), although Buddhipriya has correctly cited Macdonell who shows semantic differentiation of differently accented forms. If Macdonell thinks so ,how it can be my WP:OR?

I had given the etymologies in chronological order, but Buddhipriya reversed it, putting modern or Classical etymology first and Vedic etymology later. For etymologies, Vedas are the original source, and Apte is not helpful there. Meanings change with time, and we ought to show these changes in brief.

On the whole, the direction of Buddhipriya's work in this article is good, but for four counts : (1).chronological order of evolution of meanings, (2). role of accent in Vedic(Macdonell and MW have same meanings here, but MW's shorthand had confounded Buddhipriya), (3). Sanskrit word Brahmin is not the etymological source of Brāhmana., (4). Apte talked of four original varnas, which Buddhipriya changed to four original castes (varna originally meant class but later it was confused with caste).

Buddhipriya has caused so many changes without discussing each point one by one that I now fail to guess what to do. This article ought to be the leader of a large number of other articles, but it still lacks a proper form and content. I know where to send my OR, and my OR are respected by those who understand them. Wiki is not a place for OR. I had found a different Buddhipriya in svadhyaya, although there too I was being suspected of pushing my OR (that is why I stopped work on the second and more important part of that article : jñānkāṇḍiya svādhyāya). Some editors have preconceived notions which they do not want to abandon, beyond which every brach of knowledge is perceived to be OR, POV, &c (this last sentence in not aimed at Buddhipriya but at those editors who reverted, with abuses, my well sourced works without even reading or discussing ; e.g., topics dealing with Hindu astronomy were exported to weights and measures). -Vinay_Jha 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I regret that you feel that "Buddhipriya has caused so many changes without discussing each point one by one that I now fail to guess what to do." In my defense I must point out that the original difficulty was caused by your addition of large amounts of material that was not clearly sourced, which is what led to the prior round of edit warring (which I did not particpate in). I began working on the etmology section only in response to a request by Vinay to participate. So if my attempts to participate in this dialog have made things worse, please forgive me. Problems often arise when a large number of changes are made at once with no prior discussion, which is what destabilized the etymology section to begin with.

As I said before (and gave a citation for in the Introduction to MW), I do not disagree with the premise that Vedic accents can make a difference in meaning. The real question is whether or not those issues are worth discussing at length in a Wikipedia article. I personally do not think that they are. And if they were, we still have the question of how to represent Vedic accents, given that most user computers do not have the fonts necessary to display them, and the sources themselves are inconsistent in the representation of those accents.

There does not seem to be any disagreement that from the classical period forward, the Vedic accents are not used even in Sanskrit works. The Vedic accents are irrelevant for virtually all works published in English. As I said before, "If you examine the usage of the term in Indian books written in English, such as Majumdar's The History and Culture of the Indian People, volume 1, p. 451, you see that the normal practice in using the term in texts is to not use the accent." Thus extended discussion about the accents gives WP:UNDUE weight to them, at least within the context of a general Wikipedia article about what the English word "Brahmin" means.

Regarding the basic issue of whether or not I am characterizing MW correctly, the first point is to be sure that we are looking at the same entries. I gave citations to three Sanskrit dictionaries, trying to describe what they contained as accurately as possible. Of the three, one was MW p. 741 [2] (middle column) which has the primary entry brāhmaṇa in adjectival form with the first syllable showing a Vedic accent. While the entry word shows the Vedic accent, note that the actual uses of the word in the text of the article do not include the Vedic accent. The noun form is shown as a subentry using the usual prefix notation (o-) to indicate that a suffix is to be applied to the stem. That suffix is shown as - ṇa with the final syllable showing a Vedic accent. Thus the literal reading of this entry is that both the first and last syllables would have an accent, which may in fact be an impossibility according to the point made by Vinay (and which I do not contest). However, we are told over and over that the goal in Wikipedia is not to be correct, but to be verifiable, and there is apparently no clear way to determine from MW that the accents should not be on both syllables. That is why I cited Macdonell as an independent source for the nominal form with only the last syllable showing a Vedic accent, which is the point that Vinay is making. The point is sourced correctly by by Macdonell even though it is unclear in MW. Thus I think that the point has been covered in sufficient detail to ensure that what the sources say is documented. What the sources mean is a separate question, and that is where the problem of potential WP:OR arises.

Thank you for clarifying that the "occurring 15 times" information was indeed WP:OR on your part. I do not disagree with it in any way. Unfortunately, it is not permitted by Wikipedia policy. I empathize with your desire to do it (and I too have the impulse to do it now and then, an urge which sometimes takes great effort to control). I have found that there is little objection to sharing my personal conclusions about things on the talk pages for articles, as that type of informal exchange often helps build consensus about points. However inclusion of such material in articles is not appropriate. For the record, I do not think that you are ever "dishonest" in any of your edits. I am convinced that you are editing in good faith and that you are making a real effort to put forth valuable material. You clearly have a strong background in the material and thus are able to make general statements that may be true, but which do not always meet the formatting standards of Wikipedia. I claim no expertise on any subject and thus must follow the exact letter of books in order to try to grope through material slowly. The use of the word "castes" by Apte is an example of where I have simply transcribed what Apte said. You are correct that there is much confusion in the use of the word caste as a translation for varna, but in this case quoting the source seemed like the best policy. Similarly with the definition of the word brahmin given by MW, whether it is correct or not is a different matter than whether or not MW said it, which is easily verifiable.

Regarding what to do next, I personally think that the text of the etymology section is now so simple that most of the question seems to be about the notes. Do you feel that the main text needs to be changed, or do you feel that it is OK as it stands? We have only three sentences related to etymology still in the lead, so this must be capable of resolution eventually. Buddhipriya 02:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How many times brāhmana has occurred in RV is not relevant for this article, I had stated this merely to induce Buddhipriya to consult RV before judging what MW actually meant. But instead of consulting RV and rectifying the erroneous statement ("brāhmaṇa, with first and last syllables showing Vedic accents, as a noun "), Buddhipriya reasserted that it was my WP:OR, even after being informed that it was from Pune edition of RV. So many times I have faced wrong charges of WP:OR that many editors have formed a biased opinion that my sole aim is to convert Wiki into my personal OR.

Meanings of a term ought to be presented in their chronological order of evolution. As far as etymology is concerned, Vedic meaning is primary, where classical usages have almost no relevance in most cases. A word has too many forms and sometimes fake resemblances. We are discussing this term as a varna/caste as well as a member of this division. Hence, we must not refer to a superficial resemblance of English term "brahmin" with the Sanskrit word brahmin which originally sprung from Brahman, and possessing sacred knowledge was a later classical meaning (MW). This Sanskrit word brahmin never meant any particular caste/varna or its member. The English word 'brahmin' is an anglicised form of vernacular word 'brāhman', with a short central vowel in the last syllable. Rupa-siddhi is a technical discipline of Sanskrit grammar, according to which it is the duty of a grammarian to show the connections of Sanskrit words to sutras of Ashtadhyayi (an alternative is to find occurrences in the Vedas). This article is in a shabby shape, and at current pace it will never be finished. (To address a person by his/her first name is an insult, which I will alway have to bear in Wiki. I deliberately used my real name to get a taste of Wikipedians.) I expect help from Buddhipriya in finding proper sources. -Vinay_Jha 17:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Concern about reference methods

Here is an example of a diff in which reference tags are used simply to carry a gloss, which contains no actual reference: [3]. This use of reference tags can cause confusion if a reader sees the superscripted number and assumes that a real citation is behind the statement. In cases such as this, the reference to another Wikipedia article is specifically ruled out as a WP:RS. I would prefer to see all statements be sourced, and I would recommend removing notes of this type and integrating them into the text of the article, where they can be more easily identified as unsourced. Buddhipriya 04:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I took a similar objection to this "reference Source" earlier and saw some time later that someone had taken the trouble to actually make this entry informative but I suspect that god-bothering nutters like Balance Restored have re-infected this entry.Rajputana 06:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

End of Document

It appears the end of the article has been cut off. Does anyone know when this happened? "The Bhavisya Purana (139, 13-15) records, "contrary to%2" is very incomplete, and the whole last section looks like it needs to be revised. 74.77.124.236 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Found error. AppleMacReporter attempted to revert the article and produced an error. I corrected it. 74.77.124.236 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

GOBSMACKED

I am not inconsiderably amused by the great lengths that someone has gone to remove my last couple of postings on the grounds that they incite "hate". Does appear to be a rather low threshold for identifying "hatred" on this site. Of course being accused of inciting hate is offensive in itself when the basis is not transparent. Much worse things have been said on this post which some of which remain in simple strike-out. Preferable so that the great international audience can judge the accusation for itself rather than some anonymous self-appointed judge.

Ridicule perhaps (and I will accept) but in any society of civilised beings some of the fatuous entries on this posting will not uncommonly attract derision.

Is robust argumentation not welcome on Wikipaedia?

I wonder why that person did not remove my earlier post where I accused some nutter of being a god-botherer?

It seems the person did not like the tone of my observations but in removing them also removed some pithy arguments. Well I noticed the offending bits were subsequently edited.

There is still a lot of stupid mythology dressed as fact such as the rather unhelpful bits about Sakaldipi, Parusurama etc. The Mahabhrat, honoured as it is in Indian society, is just mythology. No more or less than the Illiad!

It aint no historical account of a bygone era!

Certainly no basis for dressing mythology up as soem faux historical narrative. These should be clearly labelled as views mired purely in mythology.

Anyway, I have always thought the Mahabharat was about the deeds (and misdeeds) of Rajputs!

Rajputana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the sections on Sakaldipi, Parusurama etc to make it clear that these entries are simply claims based on mythology. I trust sweetened milk/holy water (depending on one's belief systems) will be sprinkled on these edits. Rajputana (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading some of the mythological nonsense on this site, I am surprised that the brahmin cheer squad on this site dont claim decendency from Shrek, or the White Witch of Narnia - it would have about as much credibility.

The acheivements of a group of people are judged from verifiable actions. Apart from peddling priestcraft as their main source of income, a few priests served their Rajput masters well with education etc.

Beyond that there is little to warrant the trumped up claims on this site about the contributions of brahmins to Indian history. Militaristic traditions - TOSH! - that's right, when Indians talk about the militarisitc traditions and acheivements of India thier thoughts naturally gravitate to Brahmins!!!! - DOUBLE TOSH!!!

OH I FORGOT - the Mohyals - I see so one swallow makes a spring, eh?

And on what credible basis does all that sakalpindi nonsense remain on this site? How does that pass the verifiability test?

Can I add that the moon is madeof green cheese? There is a lovely fairy story that says it is, it is just not in the Parshurama. Rajputana (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The MYTH v The REALITY

Tall claims have been made of brahmin deeds on this page most of which has been mired in mythological nonsense. The primary purpose of much appears to be to claim the aristocratic status in Indian society which role Indians (admittedly in the North)would readilly recogise to be filled by Rajputs or Khastriyas.

Perhaps the following observations by Times travel writer Stanley Stewart may put a clearer and a contemporary perspective on this aspect:

"The centre of the universe, in the form of the great Nataraja Temple that marks the site, proves a surprisingly commercial place. The temple is a private concern, owned and operated by a clique of local Brahmans whose religious duties pass from generation to generation. They are a splendid argument against the hereditary principle.

In the long passageways, the Brahmans lurk like encyclopedia salesmen. The thick books under their arms are not religious texts but grimy ledgers in which they record their clients' contributions. Pilgrims are pressed to establish a personal relationship with one of these priests.

Monthly donations to the priest will ensure that pujas are performed for them. Without these regular payments there is no telling what divine misfortune awaits them in an unpredictable world. It operates on the same principle as a credit card: it promises salvation in tricky moments but somehow, no matter how much you pay, you never pay it off.

A young priest emerges from the gloom munching on a pastry, wearing a loincloth and a piece of Brahmanical string. Spotting me, he descends like a pot-bellied vulture. "That will be 100 rupees," he says, opening his ledger and wetting the nib of his pen. Arun tries to herd me past this importunity. But I am intrigued. I hand him the money.

"Father's name?" the Brahmin asks. He writes Yelam for William in one of the columns of the ledger; correct spelling was obviously not part of the divine plan. "Mother's name?" he goes on. For a moment it is like dealing with a government department: the personal details and the matter-of-fact clerk's voice.

Armed eventually with the names of three generations of my family, the Brahman steps inside the shrine behind him where a fat, babyish god sits enthroned on lotus flowers and fruit. Mumbling the unfamiliar names, he throws camphor on the burning oil lamp and flower petals on the god. Breaking a coconut on a stone lintel, he lays the symbolically white flesh at the god's pink feet.

Then he comes outside, smears tika paste across my forehead and suggests I sign up for 100rupees a month. He will perform weekly pujas for me and my ancestors. We will be safe in his hands.

I decline his generous offer -- it sounds too much like a protection racket -- and the priest immediately loses interest in me. A moment later bells begin to toll and he locks the shrine and hustles us towards the gates. "One o'clock," he says, looking at his Rolex. "Lunchtime."

Arun is embarrassed by this blatant commercialism. "They are wanting their pound of flesh," he says, waggling his head. "But it will do them no good in the next life."'

It just goes to proving the point I have been trying to tirelessly make on this site. Rajputana (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Brahmin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Quality of article: This is a comment on the quality and comprehensibility of the article on Brahmins. I came to the article seeking an overview of the subject to refresh my memory and to gain a sense of the evolution of the caste in history and modern India. Sadly, I read the entire article but gained little useful. The article is essentially a dense series of lists for insiders and is pretty well opaque to those who are not. I would suggest that the article does not meet the fundamental criteria of explaining what Brahmins were and are in a straightforward and easily understood manner. The point here is not to suggest the removal/modification of the existing article. What is needed, however, is an article that explains what the Brahmins are; where they came from; how they evolved; their role both religious and secular in society; their role and effect on history; relations between the various branches; the peculiarities or unique qualities of being a Brahmin in Indian society; pressures and stresses upon the Brahmin community and responses: and so on, etc. You have to think of the reader who wants to know what Brahmins are.--Lightflyer (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Lightflyer, 0340hrs UTC, 14 July 2009

Last edited at 02:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)