From: partha@mse.cse.ogi.edu (R. Parthasarathy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Distortion in Meenan Vishnu Opposed
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:45:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.43932
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute, Material Science & Engineering

In article <UepNh1i00iV041v2Fs@andrew.cmu.edu> rs6x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ranjith Ravindiran Suresh) writes:
>As far as I know most Brahmins involved in the religious aspects of
>Hinduism were greatly opposed to Budhism. Who do you think brought back
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hinduism to the Tamils? After all, Budhism makes it irrelavant Brahmins'
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	I think you are mixing up Srilankan history with the south Indian
history. As far as I know, Buddhism never became a widespread religion
in the Tamil country spreading from Thondaimandalam all the way upto
Kanyakumari. Sure there were Buddhists in Tamilnadu, just like there
were Jainists, Shaivetes, Vaishnavetes, Arab Muslims, Christian missionaries
and so on. I do know about Ilango, Manimekalai etc.. Religions in those
years needed Royal patronage to spread and take root. So Kanjeepuram
became a place for religious clashes. The Pallava emperors accommodated
everyone. While they tolerated all religions, after Mahendravarman, they
became Shaivetes. Mahendravarman was a Jain before that. He was converted
to Shaivism by Appar who was not a Brahmin. Shaivism and Vaishnavism
spread all over the south, not because of the Brahmins, but because of
the Bhakti movement. This movement did not uphold casteism. Nammaazhvar
belonged to a caste that is classified now among the scheduled castes. 
Ramanujar's guru was not a brahmin. Several Nayanars and Azhvars spread their 
faiths in southern region and later on this Bhakti movement expanded to the 
entire sub-continent. Justy like there are rich and poor Christians, there were
rich and poor Brahmins. Those who were powerful and influential, found
place in Royal courts of the Tamil emperors. Many were counselors for
trade and wars. Though they never took part in wars or trade themselves,
the kings began to consult them before they got into action. So these
powerful Brahmins became very influential. They were rewarded with
lands and tax exemption. During the Chola empire, this was called 
Brahmadeyam. There are copper inscriptions describing this, the famous
one being the Thiruvaalangadu inscriptions (Amsterdam Museum). So some
brahmins did make it to the top while others remained ordinary. Whether
these powerful brahmins reinforced the caste system or not is still
disputable. Whether this caste consciousness became strong much earlier
or only recently over a couple of hundred years is disputable too. Because
after the Pallavas and Cholas, came the resurging Pandiyas, Vijayanagar
empire, Nayakkars, Marathas and the British. We don't know under whose
rule the caste system got thoroughly entrenched. Just blaming Brahmins
for everything, without looking into historical records and analysis,
shows close mindedness.

>high place in the society. By simple logical reasoning, one can see who
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Simple logical reasoning on history is not accepted everywhere. You need
some kind of evidence.  Because that simple logical reasoning might be
completely tangential to the real issue.

>they stood to lose by having a Budhist society. 
>When they couldn't uproot Budhism in the South, they along with other
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>upper caste members upheld the caste system. The Brahminical caste
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Needs to be substantiated. You are confusing two things now - upper castes
and brahmins. Brahmins are not the only group among upper castes. There
are other castes too. Some of these belonged to trade and business. They
had money. Brahmins did not have that kind of a financial clout as far
as I know. Without money and power it is difficult for anyone to be at the
top of the ladder for long. There were strong religious codes and beliefs
which also held the system. Whether Brahmins brought them or not is 
disputable. Given the topmost status, they definitely seemed to have enjoyed
the previlege. Seen from the twentieth century perspective, it was definitely
a terrible thing. 

Time and again I come across articles which indicate somekind of a nefarious
scheme by Brahmins to be on top of the society. But such methods are near
to impossible to enforce on a huge and multifarious society like that in
India. Sure communities and people have betrayed their own society for
personal gains. Meenan Vishnu quoted an article on Sindhi brahmins who
collabrated with the Arabs. But so have several others - Prithviraj was
defeated by Muhammad bin Gori only after Prithviraj's father-in-law helped
him out. Robert Clive could defeat Arcot Nawab only after gaining support
from the native chieftains who had personal ambitions. VeeraPandiya 
Kattabommu was captured after he was betrayed by his trusted friend who
gained from that. Sure there are lots of historical events where people
did what they did for personal gains. Whether that had any long lasting
influence on the society is difficult to proove. 

If one wants to look at a situation with a spectacle of bias and prejudice,
he will never see the real picture. That's what I am telling all these
brahmin-bashers. You guys are killing a dead snake because it is convinient.

>system was introduced to the Sinhalase not by some Orrissi prince but by
>Tamil Brahmins who have taken up Budhism( a surviavl tactic)
>
?????????

Another hand waving statement. You need to prove this or show some form
of evidence. Whether Brahmins themselves introduced the caste system or
whether they took advantage of an existing system is yet to be proved.
Then there are Tamil Brahmins, Keralite Brahmins, Bengali Brahmins,
Kashmiri Brahmins and so on. Among brahmins there are several sub-groups.
When it comes to marriage, these sub-groupisms are given tremendous
importance. Even if your claim that some small group of brahmin priests made a
resolution that lower castes shall be barred from entry to temples is true, 
how far could that have been followed? How much time would it take for
the people to revolt on that? My opinion is that such systems got enforced
over a period of time by those in power. Some Brahmins received royal
patronage. May be they influenced the kings into enforcing such rigid
rules. This itself is disputable. So without any concrete evidence
to support your views, how are you making handwaving statements? Should
I take this as a form of hatred smeared thought in your mind?

>thambi
>
>
>Note: desecrating any temple grounds is intolerable. Its not permissive
>where I'm from.

Desecration is a very broadbased term. It does not include only physical
form of desecration. In some temple they don't allow women until menopause,
because entry of menstruating women is considered inauspicious. Widows
are considered inauspicious. When people don't show any form of discipline
or courtesy for others in temples, that itself is a form of descration.
Police gaurds have to beat people up to keep them in line for their "darshans".
Temples should be places where one can find a form of solace and inner peace
for at least a short while. If you go into any of our temples you'll find
only chaos. In addition to that I find these Ayyappan devotees who create
a havoc wherever they go. I don't understand why they have to be so vocal
to prove their piety. I get the feeling that almost 99 percent of the
so called "devotees" are desecrating the temples in one form or another.
For many going to temple is so routine like brushing their teeth that
I wonder if they really have any faith in their beliefs or not. Most of 
the time I have found myself wanting to get out at the earliest in order
to escape from suffocation, sweat and noise. I have seldom felt that I have
been among any devotees. 

Partha sarathy

Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil