Talk:Brahmin/Archive 2

Srigore bhahmins
Shrigore Brahmin's are the subcast of Brahmin.They are the peoples who early live near Shrinagar in Kashmir. When Muslims come to Kashmir they converts Brahmin's to Muslim by force. So many of the Srigore Brahmins come out from Kashmir. And they goes for shelter in the Rajastan, Malwa, Gujrat. That time of Malwa's king gave them shelter. And they started living in Malwa and regions near it. And some Srigore Brahmins also live in Gujrat, Maharashtra ,Nimar, Rajastan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.17.55 (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what this revelation assists with but there is still a largely misleading connection being made between brahmin and brahman. That ought to be changed and I will with some trepidation attempt thatRajputana (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This article provides lot of information but it it not very readable because information is not in flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.209.205 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Belwar-Brahman
I propose this section be removed because: -No references. Can anyone else find any? -More detail than is necessary for this article. Some of it off-topic. -Style (grammar, non-encyclopedic tone.) -Inflammatory language ("genetically pure" and "other castes who blong to belwars.") Hilary Gage (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would second that motion and respectfully suggest that whole damned entry should be cleaned up or removed. It is not dispassionate and riddled with superstitious and mytholigical nonsense. So different from the Rajput entry. Well I suppose it is on brahmins afterall. Rajputana (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Offending section removed. It must've been written by an anon IP who had no idea how Wikipedia works.


 * I must also respectfully ask you, User:Rajputana, to stop vilifying a whole community based on your own opinions/prejudices. Almost all of your posts on this talk page showcase your attempts to carry out a personal vendetta. That is not what this talk page is for, or indeed, what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Talk page discussions should stick to content issues only, and talk page etiquettes require such issues to be raised in a polite and coherent manner. Yes, like so many other articles, there are problems with this article too. Anon IPs or users with little knowledge of how Wikipedia works add a lot of nonsense to it. But unfortunately, you have been using this fact to make offensive asides. Not only is this behaviour unconstructive but it is also liable to get you into trouble with the administrators. It implies that you're not here to improve Wikipedia but to spread meaningless propaganda, which is unacceptable. It makes it impossible to assume good faith. I hope you realize the point I'm driving home. Whatever personal issues you may have with this community, kindly take them to websites like http://www.blogspot.com where they offer ample space to vent one's frustrations. But please keep Wikipedia clean. Consider this a sincere request to refrain from further casteist rhetoric. Thanks, Max - You were saying? 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Max, I thought thems was merely derisory asides(some of this lot could do with a good dose of it) to counter the propaganda but I concede its overuse (guilty as charged, m'lud) can become offensive (esp in this forum) and make valid points appear to lack good faith. Want to see Wikipaedia improve (laudable idea) just me sometimes combative style getting in the way here. Sage advice. Immediate compliance with request. This entry remains of a poor standard and could do with a severe prune(hopefully)coherently and poiltely. Thank you.Rajputana (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your positive response, User:Rajputana. Whenever real life allows me some slack, I will try and clean up some of the non-neutral parts in this article. - Max - You were saying? 18:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Brahmin and Brahman are one and the same
Brahmin and Brahman are one and the same. Just a spelling difference. Brahma is the Creator of the Universe. Lord Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu are the Hindu Trinities of God.

Many asked about vegetarianism: God created cows and fish. Then what is wrong if we eat them? No, we should not. God created cows and fish with a purpose. Cows are there to give milk to their calves, and not for humans to eat the cows meat. Fish are there to clean the water, not for humans to consume fish. Lord Rama, the hero of the Great Ramayana, went to the jungle and spent fourteen years. He was Kshatriya, and not a Brahmin. Even then he was a vegetarian and did not eat meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideas 2008 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well no they are not, just as Brahma and Lord Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu provide no legitmacy to brahmins.

Many (including I)indeed have asked about vegetarianism amonst Indians. And some amongst these many are people of intellect and scholarship who have closely studied Vedic texts beginning with the Rig Veda as well as later works such as the Ramayan AND have concluded that meat-eating and the ritual slaughter of cows (and quite probably its consumption) was recorded in this body of work as being practised by Vedic Indians. And that Lord Rama ate meat as did Krishna and the brahmins who made up his royal retinue.

As the anon person above correctly observes Lord Rama was an aristocrat or Kshatriya. Societies only mythologise the exploits of thier aristocrats and the Aryan people of India were no different in this regard from their fellow Aryan socities. It has always preplexed me as to why the passion that most Aryan tribes displayed for hunting and consuming game in Idia seems to have sruvived only amongst its aristocratic class, the Rajputs. Admittedly, this only applies to Indians in the North as the sothern tribes are not of Aryan stock.

The bards who in service of their kshatriya masters wrote and told of these expoilts in India were the brahmin.

The Aryan passion that Indian aristocrats had for hunting and eating game then (faithfully recorded by brahmin scribes in the Vedic texts) is alive and well amongst Rajputs today.

So despite the exhortations of the earlier entry, neither hinduism nor its gods forbid meat-eating.

It appears that rather than hindus, it was the Buddhists and Jains who first strongly advocated and practiced vegetariansim and at some stage it was adopted by hindus as a virtue. By and large vegetarianism (in my experience) appears to be more prevalent amongst brahmins and banias etc today but generally has missed Rajputs, although the one thing even Rajputs do not eat is beef.Rajputana (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In the section headed history there appears to be inserted recently two sentences: one refereing to Brahma etc and the other to the practice of untouchability. Brahma and brahmin are unrelated concepts and untouchability is a rather unsavoury Indian practice that is not the preserve of brahmins. So I have deleted them as I cannot see what bearing they have on describing what a brahmin is.Rajputana (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

But the fact remains that brahmins relegated other castes to an inferior position and practised untouchability. The word alleged is used to state that the author has maintained neutrality. We need a discussion on this on a extensive level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.230.66 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion about the ghastly practice of untouchability ought to take place somewhere but it is doubtful that this is the forum for it. It is far from being a "fact" that brahmins had any role in the the establishment of untouchability in Indian society. Brahmins have never in Indian history wielded any political or social power. They were never the aristocratic class. At best brahmins in the royal courts influenced policy in their role as advisers to the Rajput kings much in the same way that the clergy influenced the decisions of European royalty. It is also absurd to suggest that brahmins could have relegated their Rajputs lords to untouchability when the brahmins relied on thier patronage and protection to have any role at all in the community. In any event untouchables are a distinct band within Indian society and they fall outside the established castes. The suggestion that all castes other than brahmins are untouchable is just plain wrong. Rajputana (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Upper caste status and casteism
A history of the idea of Brahmin or Brahminism cannot go forward without taking into account rampant casteism and caste atrocities which have happened and which still keep happening in India. I guess that discussion and the political volatility of the word also have to be taken into account in that spirit. Therefore the I have undone the changes done to restore the racism part which is not a POV problem but factual. A cursory browse through the internet would prove me right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.203.167 (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot understand why anon contribuitor 220.225.230.66 felt it necessary to remove my response to the above entry. Please dont.Rajputana (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I see from other contributions made by 220.225.230.66 that the interest of that person appears to be essentially South Indian where the experience may indeed be different. I have always been bemused by the readiness of southerners to declare themselves brahmins when one considers that it at its worst forms the caste system in India was used as a devise by the northerners to subjugate the south and to distinguish the Aryan north from the non-aryan south.

So,anyway, here is my previous note fully restored. Please feel free to vehemently disagree with anything I have said but please do me the courtesy of not removing my entries:

"As I have noted above, by all means have the discussion but an entry that records in the manner of an encylcopaedia of what a brahmin is ought not be that place. In any event it is simplistic and wrong to assert that brahmins carry that responsibility. I have no doubt they have provided the intellectual oxygen for the practice through thier priestcraft but they cannot alone be made to carry the burden for that practice especially today. The whole of Indian society should consider thier role in consigning a stratum of society to perpetual penury. The changes which you had undone does not accurately record the reasons for the practice. In any event it looks like democracy and economic development may eventually put an end to the practice in the same way that the class system has largely diminished in the UK. Isnt the Chief Minister of UP and apparently a power broker in the current ruling coalition an "untouchable"?" Rajputana (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed the recent amendments to the introduction to this wherein the dubious and unverified claims of highest status was revived. I have corrected this entry with verification that such assertions have no basis in history. Sadly evidence of the social reality (that they do not have a status higher than eg rajputs and so cannot be the highest) is not verifiable in this way. But then neither are the mere assertions in this entry that brahmins are. And with respect to those relying on Encylpaedia Britanica - it is not an authority onthe subject and appears to be guilty of repeating the same misapprehension that I have made reference to in the first footnote.Rajputana (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency I have edited some of the more recent changes to the introduction as these are in the main assertions with no disclosed basis; vide: "Since the earliest Indian text, the Rigveda (10.90) it has been the highest class among the four varnas of Hindu religion. Although there is only occasional historical evidence (Pusyamitra Shunga, medieval Kashmir, etc.)"

The exact source of the Rig Veda is not apparent and is contradicted by most scholars of the Veda who say that the Vedas themselves provide NO BASIS for castes as being delineation of social status. rather the vedas state these were allocation of tasks and social duties. I will locate these sources.

Furthermore the claim that there has been "occasional" instances of brahmin rulers is just wrong and contradicted by the the paper that is footnote 1. The caste of Pusyamitra Sunga is not known. He lived so long ago, it is beyond any reliable verification. I note however that the is a Wikipaedia entry on him. It refers to a horse sacrfice by him - this was a Rajput practice - not that it makes any more sense to claim he was a Rajput. Rajputana (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I refer anyoen who may be interested to the article on the treatment of caste in the aricle called "Bhagvatgita on Caste" by Rajiv Malhotra. It completely debunks the ridiculous claim that the brahmins are recognised as the highest caste in the vedas.Rajputana (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sindhtavan has now on a few occasions reinstated entries in the introduction placing recent edits by me on the grounds that the recent edits lacked scholarly gravitas, was opinion and were not verfiable. These are expressed merely as opinions by him/her with no explanation for those opnions or why the reinstatement meets his own criteria. I have gone to some trouble above to explain that the material he/she seems so keen to reinstate lacks the very qualities that he accuses (without a scintilla of substantiation) my entries of lacking. I have explained these above but Sindhtavan's pet entries in the main concern of the claim that high-class status is conferred on brahmins by the Rigg VEda (rejected by scholars as evidenced by the article I have cited) and that there is NO evidence in history of brahmin kings (which I have also discounted). Rajputana (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Rajputana is entitled to his opinions. But they are opinions (POV), not scholarly consensus, and certainly not verifiable in historical sources. Merely quoting some blog won't do, and certainly not a blog by a businessman (R. Malhotra).

Scholarly consensus has the following:

1. Brahmins (Brāhmaṇa) have been the highest class in Hinduism, since its first mentioning in Rigveda. 10.90.12:

10.90.12 brāhmaṇo 'sya mukham āsīd bāhū rājanyaḥ kṛtaḥ | ūrū tad asya yad vaiśyaḥ padbhyāṃ śūdro ajāyata ||

-- all in spite of R.'s "rejected by scholars as evidenced by the article I have cited" -- not by *scholars*, but a businessman's blog (that does not deal even with the Vedas but with the Gita!)

This highest position of Brahmins has continued in the other Vedas, Brahmanas, and Upanisads.

See in detail: W. Rau's often-quoted book on State and Society in the post-Rigvedic Yajurveda and Brahmana texts, with copious quotes from the Vedic texts that  make  that point. Continued further by Manu, etc. All extremely well known, but not to R. -- What the Gita has to say is a later re-interpretation, immediately clear by its mentioning of the non-Vedic gunas.

(Rau, W. (1957) Staat und Gesellschaft im alten Indien nach den Brahmana-Texten dargestellt, Wiesbaden.)

Thus, Rajputana's assertion of a "ridiculous claim that the brahmins are recognised as the highest caste in the vedas" is based on ignorance and blind reliance on an incidental blog.

The amateurishness of Rajputana is also clear from his spellings: Rigg VEda, Bhagvatgita ...

2. All of this is quite different from the question of who actually wielded supreme power in a tribe or state, which  usually -- but not always-- were the Kshatriyas, until other classes (even Shudra) also began to supply kings.

Kshatriyas, as they *employed* Brahmins for their rituals, often claimed higher (actual status), as is the case with the Buddha.

In fact both classes have closely cooperated in ruling, and were dependent on each other, ever since the Rigveda. The Yajurveda texts even call this a method to suppress the people, the Vish (!). (Rau, Staat und Gesellschaft, 1957)

Further, the ruling class was called Kshatriya or Rajanya (rājanya, in Rgveda 10.90.12, again), not Rajput (or rājaputra), which is a much later, medieval term. Needs to be corrected as well.

3. Says R.: "there is NO evidence in history of brahmin kings"

The case of the Brahmin general Pushyamitra, who killed the last Maurya king and took over the kingdom, is well known. Read the source texts and history books.

That he performed a horse sacrifice (xxx]mitra inscription) does not argue against his Brahmin status as the Ashvamedha was a ritual to be performed by a *king* (for supremacy), not necessarily by a Kshatriya. Same holds for the horse sacrifices of the Gupta dynasty. -- Maybe R. should also investigate the horse sacrifice of the Rajput Jay Singh in c. 1740... What was his REAL ancestry? There are those disturbing Huna (hūṇa) lineages...

Pushamitra's Vedic leanings (after the Mauryas) are well known, read Patanjali's Mahabhasya and pertinent historiographies, such as Romila Thapar's recent book.

(See: Thapar, R. (2002) Early India. From the origins to AD 1300, Berkeley: University of California Press; -- most recently: P. Olivelle, (ed.) Between the empires : society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2006, with several pertinent articles.)

That Brahmins could become soldiers is even seen in the post-Kalhana Rajatarangini of Kashmir, which also has a Brahmin king. (Jonaraja's Rajatarangini for c. 1200 CE). Also, the founding dynasty of Cambodia (king Kaundinya, --even the name says it!) is derived from an immigrated Brahmin. There may have been several others, but I cannot recall right now. Of course, there are the cases of so-called Rajarshis in Vedic and Epic/Puranic texts.

(Jaina-Rājataraṅgiṇī : ālocanātmaka bhūmikā, aitihāsika, bhaugolika, saṃskṛtika adhyayana, tathā Hindī anuvāda sahita / Śrīvara-kṛta ; lekhaka [i.e. anuvādaka] Raghunātha Siṃha. Vārāṇasī : Caukhambā Amarabhāratī prakāśana, 1977. -- Also in English: Medieval Kashmir : being a reprint of the Rajataranginis of Jonaraja, Shrivara and Shuka, as translated into English by J.C. Dutt and published in 1898 A.D. under the title "Kings of Kashmira", Vol. III / edited with notes, etc., by S.L. Sadhu. New Delhi : Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, c1993)

Enough said. WP is not for a layman's POV elaborations but for balanced and sourced (scholarly) statements. Sindhutvavadin 00:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wont seek to impugn Sindhutvavadin's qualifications just yet. The obvious assumption one may draw from the tone of Sindhutvavadin's last contribution is that he/she is not a layman and the views expressed above and in the contentious edits are balanced and scholarly.

For the present I shall deal with what Sindhutvavadin clearly considers to be the strength behind the assertion that Vedic sanction is given to the brahminical claim for social superiority (I leave aside for the moment the absence of any real historical evidence of this) - ie 10.90.12.

Here is a translation of 10.90 that in NO WAY supports this ridiculous claim:

(SOURCE Ralph T.H. Griffith, The Hymns of the Rg Veda, 1896) "1. A Thousand heads hath Purusha, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet. On every side pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide. 2. This Purusha is all that yet hath been and all that is to be; The Lord of immortality which waxes greater still by food. 3. So mighty is his greatness; yea, greater than this is Purusha. All creatures are one-fourth of him, three-fourths eternal life in heaven 4. With three-fourths of Purusha went up: one-fourth of him again was here. Thence he strode out to every side over what eats not and what eats. 5. From him Viraj was born; again Purusha from Viraj was born. 6. When Gods prepared the sacrifice with Purusha as their offering, its oil was spring, the holy gift was autumn; summer was the wood. 7. The balmed as victim on the grass Purusha born in earliest time. With him the Dieties and all Sadhyas and Rishis sacrificed. 8. From that great general sacrifice the dripping fat was gathered up. He formed the creatures of the air, and animals both wild and tame. 9. From that great general sacrifice Ricas and Sama-hymns were born: Therefrom were spells and charms produced; the Yajus had its birth from it. 10. From it were horses born, and from it all cattle with two rows of teeth: From it were generated cattle, from it the goats and sheep were born. 11. When they divided Purusha how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet? 12. The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made. His thighs became the Vaisya, from his feet the Sudra was produced. 13. The Moon was gendered from his mind, and from his eye the Sun had birth; Indra and Agni from his mouth were born, and Vayu from his breath. 14. Forth from his navel came mid-air; the sky was fashioned from his head; Earth from his feet, and from his ear the regions. Thus formed the worlds. 15. Seven fencing-sticks had he, thrice seven layers of fuel were prepared, when the Gods, offering sacrifice, bound, as their victim, Purusha. 16. Gods, sacrificing, sacrificed the victim: these were the earliest holy ordinances. The Mighty Ones attained the height of heaven, there where the Sadhyas, gods of old, are dwelling."

And this from Yajur Veda:

''May gods anoint this man to be without rival, for mighty rule, for mighty dominion and for great splendour. This man, son of such a person, such a woman, of such a clan, is anointed king, O you subjects... He is your lord...He is also sovereign of our learned Brahmins...Let all men protect him." (Kanda 1, Prapathaka 8, Hymn i.8.10.c) / p. 54''

..ERRRR.. I think that says the king (Kshatriya) is the lord and sovereign of ALL including the brahmins. This confirms the scholarly role of the brahmin in Indian society was not akin to that of the aristocracy.

When time permits I shall address other aspects of Sindhutvavadin's POV above. In the meantime I shall undo the last edits of Sindhutvavadin Rajputana (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to unexplained full scale removal of sourced, scholarly  materials protection  of  page or lead will be invoked. More later Sindhutvavadin 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhutvavadin (talk • contribs)

Weak. Extremely weak Sindhutvavadin. ...er the explanation appeared just above your entry. I notice you have been accused of vandalism on this entry previously. This page is far from attaining consensus to warrant its locking. The "citations" you rely upon do not support your POV - the most prominent example is the wrongful use of Rigg Veda 10.90 (see, I have fixed the typo) as shown by my entry above. You even wrongly rely on footnote concerning the Hobson article that I inserted about how this flaw gained currency under the British. I have re-instated the earlier version. I suggest a way forward would be for you to deal with my entry above regarding 10.90 and Yajurveda. There are other aspects about your attack on my entry (leaving aside the more personal elements) that I will address later but you have enough to go on for the present, dont you think?Rajputana (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressing Sindhutvavadin's challenge to me in seratim, I now come to the second numbered point - that even if one took the the view that the theory of Indian caste system gave brahimns primacy (which it does not for the reasons set out in my last post), this did "NOT REFLECT WHO ACTUALLY wielded supreme power". Me thinks this is the sound of furious agreement with me; that whatever the claims by brahmins THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT POWER RESIDED the aristocracy - who mainly came from the Khstriya of whom Rajputs form a distinguished part. That is exactly what I have been saying. If brahimns did not wield actual power then at best all they could do was to try to lobby, manipulate, cajole etc those in power to thier ends. Thus their status depended largely on the master they served. To suggest that from this position of servitude and absense of military means the priests of Idia reigned supreme is absurd. Now if one accepts that proposition, then the caste that ruled was the aristocracy not those who lobbied etc them in positions of service. Hence, the preists of Europe advised, manipulated, lobbied the Kings of Europe for centuries but no one suggest that the preists ranked higher in the socila claiisifcation in Europe. And so it was in India as was observed in the Hobson article I have footnoted and can be seen in the roles perfomed by brahmins referred to in the major epic of Ramayan and Mahabharata.

There appears to be sneaky suggestion that brahmins and kshatriyas ruled indian society together as some joint aristocracy - not correct. Sure they cooperated but as ruler and trusted adviser. Rajput/Kshatriya princes and princesses were not married to brahmins becuase there was no strategic advantage in that. Not that intermarriage did not occur but one woudl find that it wa the prince who woudl marry a brahmin and not a princess eg Rani of Jhansi. But men can afford to and do marry down if not required for strategic advantage where their power is secure for other reasons. As S Kak observes:

"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." - "Understanding Caste" Mankind Quarterly, vol 34, 1993, pp. 117-123

Whatever name changes occured over the times (Rajanya/Kshatriya/Rajput) they consituted the ruling class and thsi class did not include the brahmins who remained always the priests who were in their service.

Point 3 - No evidence of brahmin Kings

The attemt at giving examples simply highlights the lack of this evidence. I have already adressed Pushyamitra - his caste is unkowwn and he lived so many many years ago it does not matter. If one has to go such a distant and unrealiable source for this part of the argument then it is already lost is it not?

No verifiable refernce is given for kashmiri brahmin kings either. It seems that kashimiri hindus operate in a casteless structure and are generally called pandit but not in a way a brahmin woudl like tobe called as the follwoing extract from S Kak in the same artice refers:

"It is generally accepted that all the Kashmiri Hindus belong to the same community or jati. Is that because they belong to a single caste or varna resulting from the conversion of the other castes to Islam? Or does this represent a variant of Hindu religion where the caste system does not exist?

Let me first deal with the designation Pandit that is applied to Kashmiri Hindus. According to Henny Sender in her book *The Kashmiri Pandits* (1988), this designation was requested by Jai Ram Bhan, a Kashmiri courtier in the Mughal court, in Delhi, of the Emperor Muhammad Shah (1719-1749), and it was granted. Apparently, before this period both Kashmiri Hindus and Muslims were addressed as
 * khuajah* in the Mughal court."

This stub on Wikipaedia [] actually ( I assume accurately) seeks to list the various dynasties who ruled kashmir before the muslims and observes:

"''Thus we have these, with a guess about their origin:

1. Kshatriya 2. Maurya 3. Kushan 4. Gonandiya 5. Huna 6. Karkota: an ashva-ghasha-kayastha, a son of a Naga divinity 7. Kalyapal (liquor vender) 8. Kutumbi (farmer ?) 9. Divira (clerk) 10. Lohara: Vyavahari (merchant) 11. Unknown''"

...er.. I dont see brahmin. And we all know that after the muslims the last king of Kashmir was a kshatriya - a Singh.

So no verifiable refernce by Sindhutvavadin to historical record of brahmin arsitrocracy.

Interesting use of layman - in the halls of justice in my regular life I am not regarded a layman. Does Wikipaedia measure up to those standards? I admit to being an amatuer at Indian history but I do understand the concept of logical discourse with subtantiation.

On the basis of the above Sindhutvavadin, I do not know whether you are a schloar and do not really care; but I do know that you do not appear to have grasped the basics of logically developing a point or supporting your baseless edits.

Far from enough said on this issue yet, mate.Rajputana (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

and(hic) one more thing(hic). Dont know who MAlhotra fellow ishhhh (hic) but your attack on his creditability as a mere businessman (hic) apppears to be mishhhplashhhed. 'ere is hishh CV:

"''Mr. Rajiv Malhotra is an Indian American entrepreneur, philanthropist and community leader who has devoted �himself to promoting a proper understanding of Indic traditions in America for nearly ten years.

After studying at Delhi�s St. Columbus High School and St. Stephen�s College, Mr. Malhotra came to the US in 1971 to pursue graduate studies in Physics and Computer Science.� He then worked as a senior executive in several multinational companies and as a private entrepreneur.� His career spanned the computer, software and telecom industries. He now works full-time with The Infinity Foundation, a non-profit organization in Princeton, New Jersey, which he founded in 1995 to foster harmony among the diverse cultures of the world.

Indian civilization and the great traditions of thought that emerged from it, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, bring to the world a unique vision of pluralism and mutual respect among religious traditions. To further this vision and promote an understanding of Indic traditions, many of the Foundation�s projects strive to upgrade the quality of understanding of Indian civilization in the American media and educational system, �as well as among the English language educated Indian elite.� They aim to encourage multiculturalism such that Western and non-Western civilizations would be given equal respect.� The Foundation has given over 250 grants for research, education and philanthropy, including grants to leading institutions of higher education, specialized research centers, as well as to many individual scholars.� It has also organized several conferences and scholarly events in the US and India that challenge false stereotypes about India and bring out a balanced view of the many positive contributions from Indian civilization.

Mr. Malhotra�s pluralistic outlook stems from his Hindu background.� He is an active writer, columnist, and speaker on a variety of topics, including the traditions and cultures of India, the Indian Diaspora, globalization, and East-West relations.

Mr. Malhotra has been appointed to the Asian-American Commission for the State of New Jersey, where he serves as the Chairman for the Education Committee created by the Governor to start an Asian Studies program in schools. �He also serves on the Advisory Board of the New Jersey Chapter of the American Red Cross.''"

He may knwo a thing or two about the subject then. Case not closhhed, m'lud. Rajputana (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Warnings
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

September 2008
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

This is the last and only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, especially by deleting sourced materials, as you did with this article, you will be blocked from editing.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Sindhutvavadin 02:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume that this warning is directed at me as I have a similar warning in my inbox. Sindhutvavadin I will do you the courtesy of a private response to that message as well.

In respect of this public warning, I reject the charge of vandalism on this entry.

The FACT is that it was you who made the first edits to the introduction with so-called footnoted sourced material that as I have set out in my entries immedialtely above this provided no support for the edits of yours and which did not stand up tp scrutiny. I have set out above why they are baseless. A mere citation is proof of nothing if it does not withstand scrutiny - and NONE of your edits has.

It would be nicer if you lived by example and tried to set out here why you think your edits were warranted so we can debate it. You did no such thing. These edits inlcudeed intemperate remarks like "kshatriya upstarts" or some such simliar remark. I will save the general public intemperate remarks about brahmins.

You then put alock on this when quite clearly it is far from a state where there is any consenus that this entry has reached that standard. This entire entry ever since it came to my notice is the doamin of those wishing to make laudatory claims about brahmins based at its highest on mythology eg claims about the origins of brahmins in the Puranas or some such without a clear statement that such claims are not and cannot be verifiable but are mired in mythology.

The standard is atrocious and not worth of an entry in an encylcopaedia. And then you arrive.

If challenging the quality of your edits and requiring you to verify your edits is a sin on Wikipaedia and constitutes vandalism then so be it. I expect the administrators do not share your view and require something better than the mere assertions of editor with clear bais and lacking the will to engage in a reasoned argument over contentios issues.

I am suprised that you question my scholarliness when you seem to be scared of transparency and appear to be loath to a reasoned debate. You appear to prefer denigration. I will continue to challenge the sort of ordinary edits you have been making for as long as I am allowed. I have not so far made this personal and have simply challenged you contentious POV that you like to dress-up as something verifiable.

I trust and hope that the decision to ban editors does not rest with the likes of you.Rajputana (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Doesnt look like I can reply to what is in my inbox, so this will have to do for now.Rajputana (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Persons unknown and unidentified have again made contentious changes to the introduction that are not verified or in any way supported by verifiable sources - and are untrue. These amendments are simply more mythology not supported by any historically verifiable record and have been contradicted by the sources I have made reference to above.

It would greatly assist the quality of this entry if people made changes having regard to the attempt at an intelligent discussion on this page.

The most recent changes are just POV and no more. They should therefore be expressed as such and did not warrant whole-scale removal of the earlier entry. E.g. I have no doubt the most recent editor considers Kshatriyas may have been once driven by ego etc. In fact they were very much driven by ego (and codes of chivalry) until Independence and still are today but THERE IS NOT ONE RECORDED INSTANCE OF ANYONE (least of all any brahmin) telling them to do anything different in matters of state. NEVER. The reference to someone in the Ramayan does not make that historical fact - it is a just story about kshatriyas not brahmins. A work of fiction. I will keep my ego in check.

Also I do not know where brahmins lived to be out of reach of Rajputs. I think you will find they lived in the Rajput kingdoms and were servile to the Rajputs.

Who on earth knows what happened in the vedic period or whether it even existed! It is not a verifiable source for anything just as the Illiad is not Greek history.

If not improved promptly the only option would been to revert to the earlier footnoted entry. Rajputana (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OED record of English usage for brahmin
Since I was researching this for something else, I thought I'd drop it in here as well. All below from OED1 = "A–B", Volume 1 of A New English Dictionary (1888), p. 1047.


 * Definition: A member of the highest or priestly caste among the Hindus.


 * Etymology: from Sanskrit brāhmaṇa, f. brahman praise, worship; some of the older English forms were derived from or influenced by the Greek spelling βραχμᾶνες (plural), Latin brachmāni, -es, and medieval Latin corruptions; the form Brahmin, a corruption of the Indian vernacular pronunciation, is still all but universal in popular use; during the present century Orientalists have adopted the more correct Brahman, which (often written Brâhman or Bráhman) is employed by most writers on India. (Usually with capital B.)


 * 1481: "Other peple whiche ben callyd ... bragman whiche ben fayrer than they to fore named." — William Caxton, Myrrour of the Worlde, 2:5:70.
 * 1553: "Their Priestes (called Bramini)." — Rycharde Eden, A Treatyse of the Newe India, (Arb.) 17.
 * 1599: "The Bramanes which are their priests." — Richard Hakluyt, The Principall Navigations, Voiages, and Discoveries of the English Nation (Voyages, volume 2), 1:252.
 * 1634: "An ancient Braminy, a devout Wretch." — Thomas Herbert, A Relation of Some Yeares Travaile, Begunne Anno 1626, p. 50.
 * 1650: "The Bramines of Agra mark themselves in the Forehead." — John Bulwer, Anthropometamorphosis, 3:66.
 * 1656: "Brackmans, a sect of Philosophers in India." — Thomas Blount, ''Glossographia.
 * 1676: "Take the preaching Brachman hence." — John Dryden, Aureng-zebe, 3:1.
 * 1684: "The modern Indian philosophers, the reliques of the old bragmans." — Thomas Burnet, Sacred Theory of the Earth, 3:3:17.
 * 1711: "And Brachmans, deep in desert woods rever'd." — Alexander Pope, The Temple of Fame, p. 100.
 * 1753: "He was fond of the brachmins or Indian priests." — Jonas Hanway, An Historical Account of the British Trade Over the Caspian Sea (1762), 2:15:1:406n.
 * 1833–41: "A whole community of Brahmins may have preserved the purity of their blood." — Connop Thirlwall, History of Greece, 54. (L.)
 * 1842: "Aryavarta was the Holy Land of the Brahmans." — James Cowles Pritchard, Natural History of Man, p. 163.

Cheers all, Alastair Haines (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm! Wonder if there are other useful worthy droppings on Brahmins ... say ...in Swahili perhaps. Do the inuit have any thougts on the matter? Oh the possiblity presentned by this line of thinking may be endless. Has any one thought of defining ...let's say.. .the role of the Duke of Edinburgh from ..say the persepective of cargo cultists in the jungles of the Pacific? Now there is a thought worthy of a dropping.Delciously dada-istRajputana (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Now Brahmins original position
The politicians and other sector people are very successful to bring the position of the BRAHMINs communities as very poor. They have no reservation and their financial position is very poor. But the children of that communities are facing so much of struggles in the Society. Some children of this community are getting above 90 percentage of marks. But the Governments not giving any opportunities to that students. Some other communities i.e., (Non-brahmins) are getting just 35 percent of marks and they getting easily placements in all jobs. This is the position of Brahmins in India. In any society all communities are happy all people are happy. If any community people feels that they are not in good position. It reflects bad to that society. At present in India NO DIFFERENCES between people. But the politicians want VOTE BANK politics. So that they want to improve differences between people in the society. All communities have poor section people are there in their communities. HENCE I REQUEST ALL PEOPLE REALISE THE FACTOR AND GIVE RESERVATIONS ONLY ECONOMICALLY BACK WARD PEOPLE ONLY AND IN SOCIETY ONLY TWO TYPES OF DIFFERENCES ARE I WANT THAT THEY ARE MEN AND WOMEN AND ANOTHER ONE RICH AND POOR. Please implement this factor our INDIA also shine whole over the world. If we not realise this thing, we must face bad factors in the coming days and our future generation does not accept our mistakes and they blame us and INDIA is not an exemption to fall into problems and also INDIA is become as an AFGANISTAN or PAKISTAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.100.125 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Question on origins
New Y-DNA research seems to show that the Brahmins show particularly high levels of the DNA Haplogroup R1a1, indicating that the group has something of a basis in the early movement of a particular group of related peoples. Yet I see nothing in this piece which mentions that ongoing research. Is there an expert on the group here who might hazard a guess about this? Thanks and regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Loss of caste
I tagged Hinduism, POV-section, Unreferenced. I didn't read beyond the portion of Brahmin that precedes its subsections. Each of the 3 sections states religious doctrines (always opinions) as facts: 1st 'graph:
 * Some Hindus mistakenly believe...
 * This ignores the fact that Hanuman...

2nd:
 * But.. (strongly insinuates assertion just preceding is false; may just need toning down slightly.)

3rd:
 * ...once a conversion has taken place the caste is lost forever... (At least the sent. begins "Strictly speaking...", but at best that applies, grammatically, to only the first clause.)

These 3 'graphs (and, i don't doubt, much in the subsections) require, besides rewording, citations and mentions of by whom?. --Jerzy•t 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing the defination of Bramin
I am adding the following in the intro segment to hopefully improve understandability

Paraphrasing, to help people better understand the term- Brahmana (Brahmin) is a person who derives happiness from the acquisition of knowledge, regardless of his caste, sex, skin color, race, etc, etc. Or simply put seeker of the truth. The contemporary caste system is a subversion of the original concept.

Most Brahmins wear the Poite or Janeu - set of three white strings hung from their right shoulder, the strings signifying 'sutras' or chains of logic, (as sutra in sanskrit = thread, that was used in vedic times to hold the patras together, and on each patra (sanskrit of leaf) was written a smaller part or section of a larger concept or idea.

After Sandhi Vich-ched (splitting the conjugate sanskrit term) Brahmana, as Brh + aa + mana Brh = All of knowledge that sorrounds us (universe), + 'aa' from agaman= to come into, + mana = mind, (seat of consciousness)

Please help improve, esp the formatting, I am new to Wiki, I will be most grateful - Dibyendu Chakraborty, Goutama, Shankha kul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.235.180 (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the caste system was not originally what it is today, it has existed since the Indo-Aryan migration (which brought the very language that the word Brahmin comes from), and it was not just anyone who liked knowledge but a hereditary group. The idea that it is synonymous with scholar, that it means someone that seeks truth, is a modern fabrication that is a reaction to the medieval power-grabbing of the Brahmin caste which was aided by later British colonialism.  The etymology is already given, and it does not replace the history of the word.  As for "Most Brahmins wear the Poite or Janeu..." we just need a source for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE MIND IT
According the ancient shloka Maithil brahmin must always be in the list of Pancha Gauda. This should be mention always.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.226.44.18 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikky.sharma24 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Brahmin and Brahman are one and the same. Just a spelling difference. Brahma is the Creator of the Universe. Lord Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu are the Hindu Trinities of God.

Many asked about vegetarianism: God created cows and fish. Then what is wrong if we eat them? No, we should not. God created cows and fish with a purpose. Cows are there to give milk to their calves, and not for humans to eat the cows meat. Fish are there to clean the water, not for humans to consume fish. Lord Rama, the hero of the Great Ramayana, went to the jungle and spent fourteen years. He was Kshatriya, and not a Brahmin. Even then he was a vegetarian and did not eat meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideas 2008 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot claim that Lord Rama was a vegetarian or that he did not eat meat. He was a Kashaktriya prince and thus followed the codes set by Manu for Kahsaktriyas. Furthermore, you cannot claim that in Hinduism there is no fish eating etc etc, since fish is used in the worship of Krishna, both in Nepal and Bengal. Even though Krishna is also worshipped mainly by Vaishnava hindus.

Gorkhali (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

I have to disagree, Gautam is not a caste of Brahmins, nor are they "Gurjar Gaur". Gurjar are a totally different jati.

Gautam is seen as two things, it is a group of brahmins, but it is also a gotra.

Gorkhali (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.192.104 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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 07:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Article not neutral, focusing only on the HIGH position of Brahmin
This article is trying to put the community in a higher sense. The Kshatriya community was the most powerful community and the Brahmins lived under their shade. Also I request a seperate section about past discriminations done by this cast. Also in this place words like "allegedly" has been used for claims of discrimination that has been proven. It is also mentioned in the puranas that the discrimination is allowed. This is the SAD religion of Hinduism and I am ashamed to be a part of it, I donno why foreigners try to follow this moron excuse of a way of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.240.160 (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a change
It is good to note that the line saying "Brahmins are considered as highest in Varna system" has been removed. Brahmins are secondary in varna system and Kshatriya hold the highest in varna system, be it Rama, Krishna, Buddha or Mahavira, all of them were existed on this earth in reality. Some how with the help of PEN, they written many literatures with lots of mythical heroes, proving their superiority. Many books were written only after Buddha and Mahavira period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.230.131 (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

POV and original research vs. scientific angle--applicable to every caste in world
POV and original research vs. scientific angle

The problem with most articles about Indian castes is that there is too much POV. In an encyclopedia, the article about a people group should be as close to the anthropological/ethnological/ethnographic point of view as possible.

Caste-promotion should be left aside. It is of no interest to the readers, and it reflects social/political agendas that are mostly POV. Signed: Shiva Raja.m82 (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content
This will all be removed soon, so please find sources for whatever is there that can be sourced. Thanks! Mitsube (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Brahmins did Menial jobs also
Dear Brahmin Brothers,

Just don't live in dreams. Read the truth and not stories written by your ancestors which are no more than fairy tales....Look at Indian Flag - the chakra is Ashok chakra who belongs to Maurya community who are now Shudra as they were follower of Buddhism. Look at Indian Currency, the 4 lions also belong to Ashoka. I can only laugh as there is no Shankh or Trishul anywhere on Indian government site. I am an Hindu and after reading many ooks I can say that todays Hindus are a mixture of Brahminism and Buddhism. Thanks god to Buddha, Jaina, Gurunanik sahib and other reformist so that we Indians are not like Talibanis otherwise rules of Brahmins are same as that of Taliban. Also Brahmin brother do read by clicking this lmik from page 239 onwards what your forefathers were also doing in ancient times...http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8-TxcO9dfrcC&pg=PA239&dq=the+brahmanas+may+be+divided+kailash&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.109.218 (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Slavery
Recently, I came across a passage from the Geography by Strabo. In it, he provides an interesting description of ancient Brahmins: "Megasthenes divides the philosophers again into two kinds, the Brachmanes and the Garmanes... As they have no slaves, they require more the services, which are at hand, of their children."

This comes from Book 15, Chapter 1, Section 59. Apparently, during Megasthenes's time, Brahmins didn't own slaves... Hokie Tech (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely re-written
To a non-Indian reader (such as myself - from UK) this article is virtually unreadable and contains little useful information. It is essentially a mixture of hindu mythology and long tedious lists of regional sub-castes. This is not a subject I know much about (which is why i came to the page). I am none the wiser for having visited it. Someone with a real academic knowledge of the subject needs to put some meaty stuff in here on genuine academic theories of origin, history and current social position and controversies (in a NPOV way - something which is also sadly lacking in the article). Very disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.116.172 (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. To even an Indian reader (such as myself) this article is virtually unreadable and contains little useful information. It's mostly incoherent and/or irrelevant. The current status of the Brahmin community is entirely absent, as are their actions in contemporary history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.215.138 (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

guyz.. answer my question..!!!!
Is Dvivedi is a subtype in hindu brahmins community??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.150.92 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Gujarati Brahmins
I am changing the Gujarati Brahmin section from Dravida to Aryan. Gujarat is not a Dravidian state, and most of the Brahmins either came from Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and even Persia (my family are Brahmins from those places). All of these are Aryan raced and so it is misleading to place the state in the wrong section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Spiritual classification turned hereditary ?
In the beginning of the article I came across: Later, through corruption and misinterpretation of the sacred texts, this originally spiritual classification became a hereditary social system in India. Can anyone provide evidence for this? This sounds very much like religious apologists of various religions. I hope this page would provide the documented academic understanding of Brahmins and the evolution of caste-system in India, and not the culture's own mythology or views of itself or its apologetic stance which happens so often in the cultural and religious pages of Wikipedia. Any allegations of a supposed time-line from "spiritual classes" to hereditary system or a supposed "corruption" of "sacred scripture" need to be properly documented and referenced. Wikipedia reflects the current state of scientific knowledge of the subjected and not the group's sacred history, and hence should reference and deal with the "sacred texts" and institutions as the dynamic historically constructed phenomena they are, and refrain from collapsing a whole culture over space and time into one supposed essential meaning, and of course more importantly need to stick to the facts we know, and refrain from apologetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.228.204 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As an addendum: I reference the wikipedia page Varna(hinduism). It explains the ancient origin of the varna system into social class distinctions, the scriptural basis for varnas, and the possible origins of the class system within ancient proto-indo-european society based on the existence of similar distinctions in Ancient Greece and Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.228.204 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Brahmins
I think this article needs to talk about Muslim Brahmins as well, just as Rajput, Jat, Gujjar do. I'd like some discussion here on the parameters of how to do this. Specifically, I am thinking of mentions in the opener as well - something like Brahmins are usually Hindu, but many Brahmins are also Muslim and Sikh. Anyone with a surname like Butt or Pandit or Dutt is a Brahmin. Allama Iqbal was a Brahmin. This is self-identification of ethnicity. --Hunnjazal (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

ARE BRAHMINS MORE WHITE THAN AVERAGE INDIANS?

Some pictures of Brahmins look from more Caucasian people than average Indian. There is any relationship? Could they be descendants from the Aryan tribes which arrived to India 3,500 years ago?--79.154.90.132 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

i want the moderators to update the sufferings of some brahmin girls who were traped as devadasis
i want the moderators to update the sufferings of some brahmin girls who were traped as devadasis

i want moderators to update who removed devadasis and saved some brahmin girls

i want moderators who want devadasis to continue in hindu temples

i sincerely believe without adding devadasis in brahmin section it cannot be neutralRaja.m82 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Devdasis are not bramhin girls hence clubbing devadasis in the article Bramhin is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.131.47 (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

'''The Brahmins are largely pure Aryans. This Race originated in the Indian subcontinent and parts of Central Asia. Racial genetics is easy to manipulate, so one has to go mainly by texts, language etc. Indians are the original Aryans. Also for example the highest ever reported presence of R1a* (ancestral haplogroup of R1a1*) is in Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) and Saharia tribe. Genes can change in different regions due to environmental pressure. while Kashmiri Brahmins are surely amongst the purest Aryans on our planet the Saharia tribe is surely not. This proves things.

Dr. R. Ganguly''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not the topic of discussion here.This article is about Brahmins and not their sufferings.Lets not lead it astray.

Another thing...In Ancient Goa,many Maratha and Brahmin girls who didnt want to burn themselves on the pyres of thier husband escaped and sought shelter in some temples and were slowly degraded to Devadasis.

Nijgoykar (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Brahmin and genetic communities
The section with this title has two problems, I think. I believe this section should be removed. Cathbhadh III   (TALK)  03:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It lacks an introduction to its topic and is therefore non-encyclopedic; and
 * 2) It is not within the scope of the topic, that is 'the social caste'.

All Hindu Priests are not Brahmins
hindu Priest serach direct me to here. But in India not all Priests belong to Hindu Religion are Brahman. Many Dravidan Priests also there. :வின்சு (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Dravid just mean people living in south(Dakshin.--59.162.59.66 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

MAHARSHI TEJANDSWAMI
any body know maharshi tejenand swami

he is a guru of Guru brahman samanj

like, shrimali, shrigod, pandya etc  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.204.142 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Arya is not a tribe.
,,,My friend you will never understand because you never try to undenstand.All your knowledge is based on imparial victorian writer who where trying to justify colonisation.Arya is not a tribe it is a word for nobel in india it has nothing to do with complexion.western scholers says that human originated in africa and from there they travel to other parts of the world.They were black due to there natural condition.so white complaxtion has nothing to do with with brahmins or arya.naver trust the book try to explore the truth yourself.After all knowledge is all about keep learning not geting degree only.knowledge and degree is diffrant thing.--Nkatyan (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Arya and the word Mia(n) mean the same thing "Gentleman" in modern day perspective, first one in Indian language and second one in Arabic.Maxmuller the German scholar made the things worse by making it a symbol of purity and transforming it to Aryan , a stupid proposition followed by the worst by his own countryman : whole world knows that.He was absolutely unaware of Indian social system. And Brahmin is a professional group associated with certain kinds of profession. But the name most probably came from the "Brahman" of Vedas.And the glory of these old writings went to those who studied and used it for their livelihood  and the composers were made rubbish.The most unfortunate incidence was justified with the  introduction of another stupid term "Aupouresheo". Regarding colour , any one can verify that 70%(minimum) of Brahmin population is black or dark.Rnibaraj (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Varna discussions
This is a continuation of the discussions from the Kamma (Caste) page. As mentioned therein, a discussion is required on how various groups came to be designated dvijas from the historical pov. So to begin with, let each group mentioned in the sections of 'pancha-gauda brahmins' and 'pancha-dravida brahmins' in this article put forth proof of the earliest dates since when they were referred to as brahmins in epigraphies / inscriptions. Additionally, 1) This article mentions 'brahmins' as "scholars, teachers, fire priests". Such a generalized representation is incorrect. The article also needs to take into recognition that people were in different occupations first, and upon gaining positions of power and wealth, have claimed brahmin-hood and kshatriya-hood. 2) This article states that "brahmins, in modern usage of the term, are further divided into various sub-castes". This is incorrect. The term 'brahmin' is a varna, not some caste which can be divided into sub-castes. Moreover historically tribal priests elevated into brahminhood in different parts of the country are unrelated to one another, so it would be obfuscation to claim that each of those groups are sub-castes. 3) The section on "Gotras and Pravaras" in this article concentrates only on biological descent. Please add content on spiritual descent also (elaborate on the rishi-shishya parampara), and also add content on the puranic origin of gotras, as well as the effects of Buddhism on the concept of gotras. 4) In the "Practices" section of this articles, vegetarianism has been mentioned. This is incorrect as eastern-indian 'brahmins' consume fish, and communities claiming to be brahmins were consuming non-vegetarian diet even in the colonial period. If a consensus is reached on how to represent the article, i would gladly add the relevant into to this article. 5) The section on "Brahmins in other religions" requires clean-up. because the context of who is a brahmin in Buddhism is different from the hindu version. Thanks. --= No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion = (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Use of Caste in biographies- does it require the individual's self-declaration?
Hi, request those who are watching this page to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics on whether mentioning a person's caste (Jati) requires that person to explicitly say that he belongs to XX caste (like in the case of religion and sexuality), or whether caste identity is objective and knowable enough (like ethnic background) to be ascertained without producing proof that the person explicitly identified with a particular caste. For example, can we identify Mulayam_Singh_Yadav as a Yadav based on newspaper articles etc., or whether we need proof that Mulayam Singh Yadav has explicitly accepted 'Yadav' as his caste (by saying, for example, something like "I am a Yadav".) Sreejiraj (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Links
There are a lot of dead links throughout the page. Are all of these really notable and will be made or can some be taken out? If anyone that has knowledge of all of this wants to remove some that would be great. Leefkrust22 (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Substandard article
This article is neither substantiated nor factual.Most of the references are propaganda.Some people may unite to from any kind of association and fabricate a mythology for Intellectual Chit Fund like the word "Brahman" which is not and was never a part of any of of the mythology of any Indian Ethnic population except some opportunist, but dragging an entire democratic population into that is like an offence.Even some of them declaring more than 50% external or alien paternal lineage without any associated mtDNA % , statistically , as is theoretically proposed by analyst , implies rape product at the beginning of a generation and such people always become self-centred , anti-people and harmful to human welfare as world history provides us with a flood of instances.And this makes the future of Indian people very gloomy.I think sociologist and truly educated peoples should engage them in such analysis to find out the truth.07:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyediting
I will not be editing for the next 10 hours. Leaving the GOCE tag at start of the article to let other GOCE copyeditors know that I am working on this article. --Greenmaven (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

CHANDALAclarification
First of all i'm a chandala not belonging to any of four varnas of hinduism. so i'm completely impartial. these are the reasons for my previous edits 1.The person who has written this article did a blunder by using 'the' article before all other groups and neglecting the outcaste(chandala). 2.I have removed 'Only few in number' because there is no mention of any number any any source so words such as 'few' or many cannot be used here. 3. "not by caste but by title / pre-fix accorded to him by the well-read in general in those days", this has been removed because caste and varnas are not the same thing, varna is a spiritual and religious concept but caste is a social one. The person who added these lines should first understand the social system of vedic india. In the early vedic(rig vedic) period hereditary was not given importance individuals were considered equal irrespective of their birth.The concept of class or caste evolved later. 4.The word "rural" has been added because in urban india most of the population is educated. i.e. the people are aware of constitution of india, which says Article 19 {Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.}

All citizens shall have the right - to freedom of speech and expression; to assemble peaceably and without arms; to form associations or unions; to move freely throughout the territory of India; to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
 * (repealed)

Article 17 {Abolition of Untouchability}

"Untouchability" is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of "Untouchability" shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

the person who are aware of these articles know that every citizen of india is equal irrespective of his birth and gender. The people who don't know this are uneducated, backward and rural because in ruaral india litreacy rate is very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outcasteofindia (talk • contribs) 18:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What does rural have to do with it, and do you have a source that shows this? I'm also not seeing what the constitution of India has to do with these changes, because what you've said above about a constitution doesn't mean that previous information about this article's subject is nullified.  Do you have any sources that can verify these changes? - SudoGhost 18:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sudo my brahmin friend first try to understand that we are living in an independent republic secular country called INDIA, it got independence 65 years ago. It is not the british period that caste based discrimination going to be there, india has got its own constitution which treats all its citizen equal irrespective of there caste, religion,creed and gender. You will agree that the person who is literate knows India's constitution well and will not follow casteism( regard brahmin superior to all ), I am providing you a link of pdf file from census of india website denoting denoting literacy rates in the rural and urban India.

I expect a bit of brain from you and for gods sake please kindly be impartial while reading this pdf file and forming an opinion. You will find there is a great rural urban literacy gap which has diminished to an extent over the period of time but still a comprehensive gap still exists.

LINK: http://wwww.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov.../data.../india/Rural_Urban_2011.pdf

I am also providing you certain articles from the leading websites that may give you the clear view of feudalistic system(brahmins considered superior in which) that prevailed in rural India and roots of which still exist in minds of people there.

LINKS:http://adaniel.tripod.com/modernindia.htm http://www.ytears.in/2012/05/caste-has-large-impact-on-grass-root.html http://www.deccanherald.com/content/245804/caste-affecting-rural-health-plans.html http://www.headlinesindia.mapsofindia.com/culture/india-caste-system.html http://www.promiseofreason.com/increasing-caste-divide-in-rural-india/ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2913662.ece and if you want more references and material please google :casteism in rural vs urban india

now you have to apply bit of your brain, you have to infer that this casteism(superiority of brahmins) is only due to the lack of education i.e. illiteracy i.e  non awarence of indian constitution and still prevailing past thinking.This is mostly in village (rural) india because in urban areas there are no caste and religion specific villages. In urban centres people with the different backgrounds and castes live next to next. So after all this i'm sure that you would be having a clear insight of the reality.

Now a my personal message to you see we all indians are brothers and sisters or you may call a large family called India. Can't you change your mind for the sake of well being of members of your family. The birth into a brahmin family does not signify that the person will always going to be good and Birth into an outcaste family does not mean that that person going to be bad. Why are you creating a divide by writing brahmin superior to other. Are others not human being then? The thoughts which you are expressing through this article on brahmin article is not going to do any good of Developing country like India. It's going to misguide the people and will retard the development rate of our country. As soon as a person born in a non brahmin caste is aware of the caste beliefs( he is inferior to brahmin) he starts hating is birth, his family, his society and finally India. The caste system is prominent reason for the drain of brain to the americas and the europe, political instability and backwardness of India due to the fact that we are still unable to a achieve a true democracy due to improper application of our constitution. And if you are still unmoved on the fact that brahims are superior then your are certainly unethical and unconstitutional. No one else but god can help you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outcasteofindia (talk • contribs) 13:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, for one I'm not "brahmin", nor am I Indian in any way. What you're saying on this talk page and what you're editing in the article are not the same.  There is nothing you've edited that has anything to do with the constitution of India, or "inferiority" of anyone, nor does the article say anything about this, and you cannot retroactively "correct" past views on something.  Here's a bit of advice though: telling someone to "use their brain" isn't going to make people eager to agree with you. - SudoGhost 02:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Who Is Brahmin?
In general Brahmins are two types. Poursheya Brahmins & Aarsheya Brahmins

1). Poursheya Brahmins are the Brahmins from the ‘PURUSHA’ and we know the lord VISWAKARMA is the purusha in Vedas (this describes the purusha suktha, that suktha describes about viswakarma only. This is well known to all scholars) Poursheya Brahmins are ‘Manu brahma, Maya brahma, Thwashta brahma, Silpy brahma, Viswagna/Daivagna brahma’. from these Brahmins, viswakarma generations are started.

2). Aarsheya Brahmins are from ‘rishis’ they are their ‘saptha rishis’. ‘kausika (son of a heap), jambuka(son of a fox), gouthama (son of a cow), vyasa (son of a fisher woman), vasishta(son of a bitch), gargeya (son of donkey), suka (son of a parrot), saunaka (son of a dog), Rishyasringa (son of deer), vaalmiki (a thief and hunter), saankhya (son of a dalitha). All these are their prime rishis. But they are wearing yagnopaveetham.


 * in purusha sukta 12

brAhmaNo asya mukhamAseet | bAhoo rAjanya: krta: | ooru tadasya yad vaishya | padbhyAm shoodro ajAyata || 12 ||

(asya) His (mukham) mouth (Aseet) became (brAhmaNa:) the Brahmin, (bAhoo) his arms (krta:) were made (rAjanya:) Kings. (yad) what were(asya ooru) his thighs, (tad) they were made into (vaishya:) the merchants, (padbhyAm) and from his feet (shoodro) were the servants (ajAyata) born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.128.114 (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Purusha sukta says brahmana was born from purusha's face purusha is vishwakarma so vishwakarma's five sun is brahmana ( panja rishis ).


 * Saptha Rishis are not born from purusha's face ( based on purusha sukta ) so they are not brahmins by birth but they are brahmins based on their karma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.128.114 (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable references
Guys this article will soon be reviewed for peer reviewed and recent referencing Jattnijj (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

small> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Content without references
I) Statements: Comments: Most temple priests follow Agamas (non-vedic texts). So provide references for the above. Also provide sources that a priest / acharya class was responsible for assisting members of society in attainment of moksha. II) Statement: Comments: '''Provide references that society was organized into four varnas in the vedas (hence, vedic period too). Following above, provide sources that priests (temple priests?) are acharyas and brahmins.''' III) Statement: Comments: Source provided is a blog (karmayoga.net). Provide an academic source. IV) Statement: Comments: '''Sources provided are Kamakoti and Vepachedu -- neither of them is an academic source. Provide appropriate source(s) for these statements.''' --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * 1a) "Because the priest / Acharya is knowledgeable about Brahman, and is responsible for religious rituals in temples and homes and is a person authorized after rigorous training in vedas (sacred texts of knowledge) and religious rituals and provide advice and impart knowledge of God to members of the society and assist in attainment of moksha, the liberation from life cycle; the priest / Acharya class is called "Brahmin varna."
 * 1b) "Brahmin priest is responsible for religious rituals in temples and homes of Hindus and is a person authorized after rigorous training in vedas and sacred rituals, and as a liaison between humans and the God."
 * 1c) "In general, as family vocations and businesses are inherited, priesthood used to be inherited among Brahmin priest families, as it requires years of practice of vedas from childhood after proper introduction to student life through a religious initiation called upanayana at the age of about five"
 * "According to ancient Indian philosophers and scholars, the human society comprises four pillars or classes called varnas or colors. In the ancient Indian texts such as Smritis, vedas, upanishads, puranas, etc., these four "varnas" or classes or pillars of the society are: the priests / Acharya (Brahmins), the rulers and military (Kshatriyas), the merchants and agriculturists (Vaishyas), and the Assistants (Shudras)"
 * "The Brahmin priest has to wake up at four in the morning and bathe in cold water, rain or shine, warm or cold. Then, without a break, he has to perform one rite after another: sandhyavandana, brahmayajna,[1] aupasana, puja, vaisvadeva and at least one of the 21 sacrifices for hours, in front of a sacred fire, with all the heat and smoke."
 * "So many are the vows and the fasts the priest must keep, and as many are the ritual baths the priest must take in a day. The dharmasastras require that the Brahmin priest adheres to the rules and rituals imposed on the priest not only during the performance of so many rites and rigorous discipline, but also every second of his life, because the Brahmin priest life is dedicated to God. The priest performing rituals, may have his first meal at 1 or 2 PM (and on the day of a sraddha (cremation)) it will be three or four PM). The Brahmin priest's vegetarian meal and dwelling are simple and humble.[2][3]"

Brahmins in Thailand
Recently the following phrase was removed from the article:

"Brahmins in Thailand are known as 'Phram' or 'Paahm' (พราหมณ์) and claim ancestry to Indian Brahmins who migrated to Thailand in the 6th century AD "

Was this done after checking the cited external reference? Can someone review this reference? If there is no valid reason to remove the phrase, I think the removal should be reverted.

HVN 02:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Brahmin from Fallout?
This may sound stupid to some people, but should there a reference to a brahmin from the Fallout series by Bethesda Studios or no. This is just a reference to outside/other uses of the word and if you deem it not worthy of being on the page then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice508 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Justice, I feel it might be good to list external references to Brahmin in media, movies, literature etc. This can give another perspective. The current article doesn't seem to focus on much except the duties/interpretation and a vast (debated) list on the different classes of brahmins. The reference you mentioned may be included too. However, the list of external references to Brahmin in media, movies, literature etc, might be very vast. I can contribute with whatever I am aware of. It would be good if we can set up such a section. HVN 02:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harivishnu (talk • contribs)

Bhumihar Brahmins
The inclusion of Bhumihar Brahmins is at present sourced to and should not be removed wthout an explanation. I'm unsure about the reliability of that source and raised the matter at here at WT:INB recently. The issue affects several articles and it seems that one person is periodically remvoing the same statement from them but always without providing a reason. Please explain. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am hearing this term first time ever, myself. But you are correct, can't remove uncommon as long as it's sourced well. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that it is sourced well - that is why I raised it at WT:INB. Feel free to comment about the source there because it affects several articles & I've got doubnts whether we'll get much useful input from the good folk at the reliable sources noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Request to merge Bahun into this Brahmin; discussion below. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd just redirect it to the Brahmin article. The thing is full of OR and the bits that are sourced are already in the Brahmin article. It seems that the intention was to highlight a synonym but it is obvious that the thing has been hijacked by groups of caste warriors. If the synonym is valid then, sure, mention that here but otherwise the article is useless. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Bahuns are Nepali Brahmins :They are of different ethnic origin.So different naming should be followed.117.194.204.80 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Sitush, 'redirecting' is nice idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Poor structure and lack of referencing
With the depth of modern NPOV material now available why is this article so poor?

Please tidy up and bring this' caste system' into the 21st century using appropriate modern scholarly frameworks not mumbo jumbo.

Evidence first (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is poor but it was worse a few weeks ago - we're getting there. Meanwhile, why not have a go yourself? - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)