Talk:Brahmin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brahmin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...


Peer review Brahmin has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Claim to be highest Caste

This is an oft repeated and misleading claim by brahmins especially to foreigners. This is not universally correct. Rajputs reject this claim. To Rajputs a brahmin's role is that of their teacher/guru. Today with Arya Samaj and the like even this has become irelevant.

Certainly, in the South there may be basis for such a claim since they dont have Rajputs.

This is not meant to be antagonistic but an attempt to put the story right. Someone on this chain claimed the entry was about the celebration of brahmin acheivements - wrong! Wikipeadia is about an online information source and strives to be reliable. This should not be treated as some celebration nonsense.Rajputana 05:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rajputana
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)


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 :-)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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

[edit] 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).

[edit] Profession

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

[edit] expansion

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Alternate meanings

I believe this word was used in the 19th century to describe fans/followers of Johannes Brahms and his style of music - the Brahmins as opposed to the Wagnerians. 4.131.113.234 07:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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.

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

[edit] 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 encyclopedia 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.


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Gotama (caste)

This article contains the following text:

Gautam is caste of Brahmins in India. They are also known as gurjar gaur.

Leaving aside the mismatch between text and title, if this information is accurate, should it be merged with this article, or elsewhere? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The information is correct. I have checked. --ISKapoor 02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Proposal for list of brahmins

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

[edit] 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)


[edit] Brahmins in poverty

I strongly dispute the statement that "In the modern democratic India, the Brahmins are still not only poverty stricken, but also shunted out of every opportunity". This seems deliberately an anti-Brahmin statement without any factual basis. Why would there be any need for reservations for OBCs if this was true. R

I agree with the statement that in present time many bramhins are living below to the poverty line and is in very very bad condition. Lots of bramhins are facing problems with the marriages of their daughters because of the lack of fund. Not only with this problem, they have no any supports from the government either from central or state for supporting their livelihood. No services at all in government. Those who are talking for the status at high level in services, their numbers are very very less. Those who talks for the indulgence in politics, it is due to their branial and intelligential capacity. Bramhins are alive and survives by their calibers and intelligencia, which they have since generations. Infact every body is attacking on Bramhins targeting them particularly, that they are the problem creator of the nation, while their numbers are very less in population, say merely 5 percent. Bramhins are still alive and survive in this competitive age without any external support of any kind. If Bramhins are ahead in the society, it is due to their intelligentia, which they possess.

user:Dbbajpai1945@sify.com 01:04 PM IST 05 September 2006

[edit] From the contents of the Brahmins redirect

[edit] 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:

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.

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, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/a/Talk%7EBrahmin_a0e5.html"