Talk:Ambalavasis

message: *Against
No historian, sociologist, anthropologist or any serious scholar refers to Ambalavasis as a literal "brahmin" community. "Ambalavasi" designates a social formation consisting of numerous castes or jatis involved in various temple services -- i.e. they are temple servants. They may be an upper caste formation but the claims that the community in toto constitutes a "brahmin" community or "caste between Brahmins and Kshatriyas" is nonsense. Clearly this entry like others is no more than bits of wishfull thinking parading as facts.
*For
Most of the pushpaka brahmins wear Yajnopaveeta, which is a Brahmin symbol.  And for the knowledge of the argumentor, there existed no distinct Chaturvarnya system in kerala.  It was a substitution to the castes existed in Kerala based on the social level.  It can also be noted that in most of the historical references and novels, nairs are considered as Sudras.  But in some other books, Nairs are Kshatriyas and again in some others Nairs are Vaisyas.  Eventhough not much references available, this is the case of Ambalavasis also.
*Against
You've pretty much admitted my point. Ambalavasis have an undefined or ambiguous status in the formal varna system --that doesnt make them "brahmins" even if _some_ (not even most) communities have managed to adopt certain rituals and customs whether historically or recently. For the last two centuries, largely since the end of the 18th century, upper caste or savarna communities in Kerala -- communities of high ritual rank -- have often been involved in a struggle of redefining or repositioning themselves in the chaturvarna system precisely as the premodern seigneurial-feudal mode of production began to dissolve undermining the social relations built upon them. For example in Kerala numerous intermediate caste strata, i.e. dominant peasant or artisanal caste groups, for the first time were able to claim or push successfully for "nair" staus with their growing economic power-- a process similar in Northwest India with intermediate and lower tier communities claiming Rajput status -- a process still going on today. Both communities began to accept new communities and redifine themselves in terms of their constituent communities in order to protect sectarian intrests.  IN the premodern period  this upward mobility was largely restricted, the various savarna caste communities having more defined social functions, ritual rank (relative to each other) and membership. THe boundries of the upper strata of the "nair" caste or aristocracy for example overlapped with the royal caste families ("Kshatriya" often being more a titular rank for particular families than a caste in the sense that we understand it) while the lower ranks of the community constitued lower gentry, the squirearchy and retainers (See for example "THE Boundries of Hindu Law: Tradition, Custom, and Politics in Medieval Kerala", Davis, R. 2004) Modernity has largely redefined what  "nair" or "ambalavasi" mean. In the middle of all that ambiguity and historical amnesia communities have attempted to make claims and push for redifnitions, using fictional stories to assert or underscore their claims-- in fact this is one of the most pervasive features of the changing social system throughout the subcontitnent 
But let's be clear about this: despite the ambiguity, neither in  a popular sense nor in a scholarly sense have Ambalavasis ever been considered "brahmins". THe ambalavasis community spans a large number of ritually high ranking jatis-- for e.g. the Nambiar community in rank sometimes/someplaces overlaped with nairs, the community having alternatively been classified both as ambalavasis and nairs; while the Marrar ambalavasi community despite savarna status were often considered ritually polluting by some nair communities because they were the ones to handle their death cermonies. . . none of these are necesarily true or false one way or the other, it just goes to demonstrate the absurdity of claiming that such a wide group of overlapping high ranking castes with ill-defined boundries constitutes a "brahmin" caste. In fact there are lots of things that are wrong, absurd or just plain silly about the entry in question--I neither have the time nor interest in editing peoples's lazy unfounded assertions or sectarian fantasies. I've only changed the most obviously ridiculous, over-the-top claims that were clearly motivated by a personal agenda. To repeat: ANyone even moderately familiar with Kerala's social system and history would find the claims that  ambalavasis "are commonly known as Ambalavasi Brahmins" or are an "intermediate caste between Brahmins and Kshatriyas" simply laughable-- if anything they have been both "commonly" and from a scholarly point of view considered below "Kshatriyas" and above while at the same time overlapping with "nairs" (Off the top of my head, see for example any of the early state manuels or surveys, or pretty much ANY scholarly historical work). The edits being done are minor -- simply removing a couple of the most absurd and unsustainable claims clearly motivated by petty caste obsessions.
*For
In the firste paragraph, there is no claim that they are proper brahmins.  The word used is Semi-Brahmins.. It does not mean proper brahmins.  Therefore a change like not Brahmins proper is not necessary.  You must be aware of the fact that, in India, only Brahmins have gotra.  Similarly pushpaka brahmins have gotra.  You can be confirm it by asking to elder ambalavasis.  The rituals mentioned in Yajurveda is also practiced by most of the communities in Pushpaka Brahmins.  Kerala ambalavasis mainly adhers to Krishna Yajurveda-Boudhayana sampradayas.See "Kriyaratnamala".
*Against
THis Wiki entry is largely puerile fantasy -- your own discussion posts here are confused about the matter, trying to have it both ways. NO ONE seriously considers them brahmins or an "intermediate caste between Brahmins and Kshatriyas". As for your laughable assertions about gotras and rituals, I suggest you peruse the sociological literature on "sanskritization" Again stop passing your fantasies off as factual material.
*For
Why are you considering as fantasy?  It is well stated in the first paragraph that they are not brahmins.  The word used is semi-brahmins.  It was the status of Pushpaka brahmins from time.  There is no need to consider them as brahmins.  But the word semi-brahmins is more suitable than non-proper brahmins.  There is no need for assersion about gotras and other things. I dont know what you really want to establish.  The most serious matter is not this.  While you are reverting the present edition to a previous one, the historically established things which are corrected later are also getting reverted to older incorrect version.  Please consider this fact.  I doubt, you are purposefully trying to diminsh the real social status of ambalavasis.  There is no claim for brahminism.  They are not arguing that they are priestly caste.  Read the article fully. Go for edit. Dont revert.  Consider this as a request.Please...
*Against
Look, they are NOT brahmins, "semi-brahmins" or an "intermediate caste between Brahmins and Kshatriyas". They are NOT in ANY way as a caste group even partly considered as brahmins. In social or ritual rank they are as a caste grouping traditionally considered below the formally defined "kshatriya" families and slightly above, while also at the same time ovelapping with the upper ranks of the extant nair community. In fact if one were to ensure a high level of accuracy for this Wiki entry one would have to gut it in its entirety and rewrite it from top to bottom, including changing the name of the entry from "Pushpaka Brahmins" to "Ambalavasis". I've merely changed a couple of the more ludicrous  statements. Be thankful for that. If you want to pass off wishfull thinking or absurd beliefs as facts then may I suggest you set up your own website where you can indulge in whatever fairytales you so desire.
*FOR
Why the NOT in bold?  The kshatriya person above want to demote the status of ambalavasis. Ambalavasis are brahmins. 202.88.236.202 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Pushpaka Brahmins real Brahmins? Debate

message: It seems the page is in a continuous flux due to the debate going on. Hence reverted to older version by 59.93.11.96.  Aanand Pranav Sharma 11:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page in flux

message: I am tired.  When you wanted references, I cited two references. You are not willing even to find it.   If you want I can suggest more references about position of Ambalavasis.  If you are a real student, you can find it.  I cannot bring it to your hands and I am not going to mention the places where they are available.  That is not my duty. You are trying to establish your ideas by harsh sentences.  You must be aware of the fact that chaturvarnyam is not the caste system.  It is only a classificateion.  When aryanization took place in southern india,the castes already existed in kerala were naturally grouped in to these four classes.  Actually,there were no castes which were grouped into Kshatriyas and Vaisyas.  However, later, Kerala Nayers, Maharastrian Marathas and Tamil Maravors accured Kshatriya postion by their economic status.  I know, obtaining a Ph. D is not a final word in all these matters. (I told it to you only because I wanted to make you undrstand that I am not kidding). But you are a person who are not even trying to refer those books that I have suggested.  I'm sure, You have no understanding on these matters.  When the classification occured gradually, eventhough it took over a long time, the ambalavasis community generally considered in the Brahmana varna.  Pushpaka Brahmin is the technical name used by them. Even now, they are using the same name.  Wiki articles are headed by technical names.  So there is no need of changing the title of the article.  The redirect link is sufficient.  I already told you that I have not much time to talk with you.  Eventhough, your rude and harsh character prompted to write such a long message.  You took a name as agrarianstudies. I wonder--Do you know the meaning of that word?  And you are still remaining as a red link.  Please disclose yourself.  Being red is not a disqualification for editing this areticle.But let me know what your real status is. Please dont revert to your stupid article.  The introduction that you are provided is neither in wiki format nor factual.  I hope you will stop editing this way.  However,historical changes are acceptable.
Insvik 12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only for the user agrarianstudies

message: Actually I am not getting you.  Moreover this is a discussion page.  Why are you not sending comments to my talk page.  I think you are a new wikipedian.  And you usually forgets to sign your articles.  You are prompting me to report you as a spam to the wikiadministrators.  I am requesting you politely that be manly.  Actually I dont like this type of personal arguments in discussion page.  If you can, please comment on my talk page. 
I accept the fact that I dont know much more about Kerala caste system.  But this doesen't meen that I dont know any thing and you know everything.  I am actually a student of Kerala history and sociology.  A person living in the 21st century.  So I am not arguing that I know everything.
All  the sentences I have given  about the status of Nairs, Marathas etc. are not mine.  They are from standard references.  I am not getting what is your intention.  I think you donot like the word semi-Brahmin.  This may be the problem.  I am here suggesting a few books for you.  I cant bring it to your hands, but if you really want to know about kerala history, you can find it from standard libraries.  Please go through these books.  Let this article as such till our discussion reaches a conclusion.  Because I cant bear providing false statements to REAL students.  Now I am suggesting four books.  I hope you will read this and then make the comments.
1.  Society in Medieval Malabar by K.S. Mathew.
2.  Caste, Nationality and Communism in South India.  Dilip Menon
3.  Caste in Southern Inida by Saenart.
4.  Indian caste system: A Study by Hayavadana.
Eventhough I suggested these books, I am sure that you will repeat the stupid sentence "STILL NO REFERENCES CITED".  I dont know what you actually mean by a references.  I think these books are not written for any particular intention.  In most of the books about Old kerala society, it can be found that the castes mentioned in Ambalavasis are classified as "antarala brahmins".  In some books the term used is simply antralars (intermediaries).  It is also clearly stated that "In the caste Structure of Kerala, the Antarala Brahmins like Varriers, Chakyars,..., came below the Namboothiris and above Nairs.  
I am sure that you will have arguments without any studies.  I will admit it..But, please...put it in my talk page.  Not here.  This is not the place for personal debates.  This is a place for general debates.  And finally, I have to say one thing, Your article after editing is not in general wikiformat.  First go through the tutorials. And also see the standard pages of wikipedia.  
Yours Insvik 12:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is your intention?

message: The question is not what my intentions are, but what yours are? You're the one, by posting complete fiction as fact, that is clearly trying to use this page for your own personal agenda , and then disingenously hiding behind claims that you are not really claiming what you are in fact claiming -- hence the title for the entry "Pushpaka Brahmins" (a non-existent entity); or  the use of the phrase "Ambalavasi Brahmins"; or your weird claim that ambalavasis "show attributes of both the Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Hence this caste is generally considered as an intermediate caste between Brahmins and Kshatriyas".
As for your amusing method of citations you merely list book titles that have either nothing to do with what we are talking about or that don't in any way support your weird claims. Did you think this sort of trick would work? that I or anyone else would have no familiarity with the relevant published literature? You trying to pull this sort of trick makes me wonder if you're either a complete fraud or simply obtuse. You repeatedly say things like "it is from standard references" or that "it can be found that" without citing anything, indicating that you really have no idea what you are talking about. In any case there are really only two points that need to be considered:
(1)Its a simple principle: if there is some disagreement regarding points of fact it is best to leave them out until they are resolved -- that is any entry should be conservative in its claims and not include potentially wild statements
(2) Properly speaking, Ambalavisis  are really a collection of castes -- a grouping that is collectively placed below Kshatriyas and above Nairs in Kerala's traditional caste hierarchy -- there is of course some overlap, and the boundaries, particularly between upper strata nairs and some groupings of ambalavasis and royal lineages, can be diffuse, but still this is the basic and _uncontroversial_ framework for caste at that end of the social hierarchy. For example see C. Fuller's important ethnography in central Travancore, "The Nairs Today", where he lists (while still acknowledging ambiguities at the boundries) the basic ritual hierarchy starting from the top:
Nambudiri Brahmins
Other Brahmans
Kshatriyas
Samantans
Ambalavasis
Nayars
Vilakkittala Nayars, Veluthedathu Nayars
Kammalas ... etc, etc.
(Fuller, CJ, the Nayars Today, Chpt 2. Cambridge University Press, 1976). This is just one simple example -- but EVERY other source gives the SAME setup. Almost everything you have written for the entry in question is sheer fabrication. Given that your claims are so completely disconnected from reality I can only assume you have no scholarly interests in the subject at hand, but are instead using this page for your own _personal_ lobbying effort on behalf of your casteist politics. Now that really is the issue, isnt it? 
--AgrarianStudies(03/08/06)
What else to discuss?
Almost everything you have written for the entry in question is sheer fabrication. Given that your claims are so completely disconnected from reality I can only assume you have no scholarly interests in the subject at hand, but are instead using this page for your own _personal_ lobbying effort on behalf of your casteist politics. Now that really is the issue, isnt it? .About me?.  Please..Dont...Think about yourself.  I have not only contributions in this field, and I am a person having verity of interests.  But you always stick on only two pages, Pushpaka brahmins and Nambiars.  No othr contributions. I got it. 
You had prove yourself as an unexperienced wikipedian. I have given too many suggestions. You are sayiny, all these are fictious books. I have to do nothing expect laughing. I have much more references. But you dont desreve it. No more discussion with you. Let us continue this reversion war. That may be better. If you are furthr interested, go for studies on Kerala society. I told you about the term antarala. It is clearly classed in between Nambutirs and Nairs. Not below nair. You are a filled bottle. Nothing can be poured into your mind. You are not willing to study one more book. I assume you are an ORTHODOX NAIR. Any way no more discussion with you. Because you dont like it. I think reversion is your hobby. Anyway your article is not acceptable. Its introductory paragraph is not in wiki format. It starts with some Bullets and wide gaps etc. See other pages. Then edit. If you want to know any other thing, only comment on my talk page or post me a message. The Insvik link will help you. Yours Insvik 08:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yup, Still No Relevant References

message: There appears to be a lot of politics being attributed to the discussions.  It is my understanding, the information from my uncles and family, that Ambalavasies are not Brahmins.  It is said that Ilayathu is the lowest of the Brahmin castes and Moothathu is the highest non Brahmin castes; the reason why Ilathu is above Moothathu, though by the meaning of the word it should be the other way.  
All Ambalavasi castes are not Pushpakas.  Tiyattunnis consider themselves above Pushpakanunnis and do not consider themselves as pushpakas.  If they are not Moothathu, who are higher in order can not be.  Till about 1940s tiyattunnis were not having marital relationship with pushpakanunnis.  There is also a sect called Samanthanunni, who is considered lower than tiyattunnis, though I am not aware of there position vis-s-vis Pushpakanunnis
The article wrongly includes Ilayathu as a Pushpaka while they are real Brahmins (ref: www.namboothiri.com/articles/classification.htm). 
--Unnikn 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambalavasi classification 

message: Kerala had more castes, alphabets and even trade unions than the rest of the country. As pointed out by an enlightened reader above, fitting the myriad castes into fixed compartments of 4 varnas is a daunting task. However, considering the folowing traits of the  ambalavasis, I leave it to antagonists to plough their way thru to justify the committed stance that ambalavasis are shudra/vysya or kshatriya ( if they insist on ambalavasis not being brahmin):
(a) Some ambalavasis did wear the sacred thread.
(b) Some ambalavasis did excel as experts in the field of maths,shastra and language (gurus) akin to Drona and Veda Vyasa of the legends. Veda Vyasa was born the son of a fisher woman. Antagonists may like to club him as a shudra too! ( His progeny -Dritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura are beyond consideration).( parayi petta 12 kudumbam is an even more fascinating/ ridiculous concept of keralolpathi where the progeny of the pariah lady is elevated to brahmin status)
(c) Some ambalavasis did perform the tasks of purohit of their own as well as nair and allied communities (Ilayathu)
(d) Some ambalavasis did perform poojas in temples (Adikal)
(e) Some ambalavasis did perform the shodasa kriyakal/ rituals/customs associated with the dwija/ born again communities.
(f) Some ambalavasis did base their livelihood in and around the temples.
(g) Needs authentication: If I remember right, Aithihyamala refers to shaktan thampuran giving 8 annas dakshina to nambuthiris and 4 annas dakshina to paradesa brahmins and ambalavasis at trichur vadakkunathan temple. Could someone confirm or disprove this please... I could not get the exact ref presently.
To sum up these aspects, here is a community that was temple dwelling, janevu (sacred thread) wearing twice born, performing roles of acharyas, gurus, purohits and priests. None of them were permitted by the then traditions to do "oathu" of vedas, although many nambuthiris were described in kottarathil sankunni's aithihyamala as 'vedaarharallaatha brahmananmaar' by the same token.
The contention that these qualities make the ambalavasi a unique semi brahmin variety not found in the rest of the country is not correct. There are similar (Grihasthya) Brahmin communities found all over India who had been assigned similar non vedic chanting roles / secular roles (check Niyogi Brahmins of Andhra, Chithpaavan Brahmins of Maharashtra, Bhumihars of Bihar, Mohyal of Punjab and Tyagis of West Uttar Pradesh, to name a few).
intcore 21:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SemiBrahmin

message: There has been no answer to the contention that Ilayathu is not an ambalavasi but a Brahmin (Namboothiri). I missed to mention about the same contention about Adigal. I can not offer any scholarly reference other than the website www.namboothiri.com/articles/classification.htm)
--Unnikn 15:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SemiBrahmin?