Talk:Brahmin/Archive 4

the spelling "Brahmin"
The academic world has almost unanimously abandoned the spelling "Brahmin" which badly misrepresents the Sanskrit original term which is Braahmin. Colonial transliterators wanted to distinguish this term, Braahman, from the philosophical term Brahman, but did so by giving the impression that there is something in the second syllable that differentiates the terms, when in fact the difference is in the first syllable. It is problematic that that first syllable difference is the difference between a long and a short "a" which cannot be easily indicated in standard English. Yet the meanings of the terms, and thus their contexts, are not easily confused so it is now standard to spell both terms Brahman when not using diacritical marks. (I followed up this topic after changing the spelling in the Narayan Vaman Tilak article to Brahman; I guess that must be undone but really the antiquated "Brahmin" spelling should be banned from Wikipedia. I hope all readers of this talk page will agree! (unsigned, added by User:Hlrichard)


 * Whether true or not, the English word found in all the major dictionaries is spelt the same way the title of the article, and that's the test. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2020
I have relevant information to improve the article Olden Creed (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Earliest Refernce, Someone rigged Rigved with Purushsukta
Reference 6 ,that of Maxmuller ,OUP book in English, is debated source. In Rigved, originally ,Purushsukta was not there .It was introduced much later , even much later it was thought to be earlier in British India later period .There is definite prove , and discussions in Wikipedia .The only logic , that Purushsukta , was in Rigved , is by member of Brahmin caste member , and his logic , dangerous as well , a genius wrote in a language of  100 years later , surely it was another Brahmin who inculcated that .But latest proof is not only of simple language usage ,like Shakespear or Chaucer etc , it is far more sure and decisive , that there was no Purushsukta , in Rigved .Maxmuller was a person of much earlier time /Later findings are there , why exclude ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.33.77 (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: Development of Hinduism, Caste System and R1a Migrations from Pontic Steppe
To editor, the Blavatnik Institute published results of their multi-disciplinary study at Harvard University funded by John Templeton Foundation, and various national governments of several countries that form their Human Atlas Project in which they have mapped 15,000 human remains in DNA sequences from the past 50,000 years. Their findings were published and and showing that the Brahmin caste is the only group out of the 140 Indian populations with significant genetic contribution of R1a (so-called Aryan or Indo-European, Germano-Slavic) Steppe pastoralists proving definitively that Hinduism was introduced to India by invading populations of Caucasian steppe warrior nomads. This is an important contribution to the article. Thank you. Historiaantiqua (talk)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And not entiry correct: Indo-Aryans introduced the Vedic religion; Hinduism is the synthesis of the Brahmanical "master-narrative" with other local traditions; this sy thesis started after the Vedic period. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with Joshua Jonathan. I was merely requesting that the addition be added. Historiaantiqua (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that addition being the heritage of the Brahmin caste, rather than the explanation of the religion. Historiaantiqua (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

And they're not "Indo-Aryans" - that's sort of my point. They're Caucasian Steppe pastoralists. Historiaantiqua (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Error in translation
The rigveda sukta in the Notes section is mistranslated. "Kavuru pāda uchyētē" means, "in temples, we worship your feet". Indielov (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Brahmins in Manipur are in OBC
I hope the Wikipedia editors would add Manipur Brahmins who are in OBC. They do constant on other community page. Below is the circular for the same: CENTRAL LIST OF OBCs FOR THE STATE OF MANIPUR Entry No Caste/ Community Resolution No. & Date 1. Badi (Nepali), Damai (Nepali), Gainay (Nepali), Kami (Nepali) and Sarki (Nepali) (who have been living in Manipur as members of the domiciled community since the 9th July 1947 and their descendants) 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/05/1995 2. Meitei, Meetei (including Meitei Brahmin, Meitei/Meetei Sanamahi and Rajkumar) 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/05/1995 12011/7/95-B.C.C.dt.17/07/1995 3. Meitei Pangal 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/05/1995 4. Teli (who have been domiciled in Manipur for 10 years, and their descendents) 12011/7/95-BCC dt. 24/0 Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Balamon in Vietnam
The article states that "The Chams Balamon (Hindu Brahmin Chams) form a majority of the Cham population in Vietnam" That is not true. The majority of Cham are Muslim. However all the remaining Hindu Chams are Balamon.Malaiya (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Buddhist and Jain Brahmins
Throughout history, there are mentions of Buddhist and Jain acharyas who were Brahmins. Bhojak brahmins still worship in several Jain temples in Gujarat and Rajasthan. There exist Jain brahmins in Karnataka. I hope someone will add the details. Malaiya (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Definition in the lede
want to discuss about your revision.Worldmonk (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Worldmonk. Greetings. I guess you're talking about the latest revision wherein I reverted your recent edit on this page. I did it because the lede should simply summarize what has been discussed in the article. I agree with your claim that the term Brahmin fundamentally refers to a person who has attained enlightenment, but the topic of the article is not that. Here, it refers to the name of the sect, which is being discussed in the rest of the article. If you can provide a source for your claim, maybe we can add it in the etymology section. This is similar to how the term vegetarianism is being treated in the article on vegetarianism; although the term originally refers to "eating anything that is derived from plants (and only plants)" (i.e., plant-based or vegan), the mainstream meaning today has morphed to include milk, honey, leather, silk, etc. This is what has to go in the article's lede. Hope this makes sense. Please feel free to discuss what you think. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Flow
Your claim that my reordering the flow of the lede introduces POV is bizarre - the original version of the article talks about Brahmins as a class, jumps into discussing their occupations, and then returns to an issue of class (i.e. prestige). I cannot see what quarrel one could reasonably have with the lede identifying Brahmins as a class (and commenting on the ritual (and consequently social) prestige that attaches, which is one of the most salient characteristics of the class), before proceeding to discuss occupations. You've also reverted my removal of a primary source; we should not be citing the Manusmrti directly.

Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

, My objection is to the statement that "in theory they are the most respected". You cite Doniger, but I couldn't find anything in her book which said brahmins were the most respected. Brahmins do have the highest ritual status but does that translate in to "the most respected"? No, I wouldn't use Manusmrti as a source either.Let me check whether I remove a source that i shouldn't have. I hope this clarifies the matter.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Caste in lead?
The lead as it currently stands does not contain the word "caste", which is a baffling omission. "class", as used in contemporary English, typically signifies social status that is at least minimally malleable; whereas this page is very much about an ascribed social identity. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourced Content removal
Why are you removing sourced content Ekdalin? like this .other editors are invited to comment here also. Nobita456 (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, and  please raise your concerns here. The sources, that I have provided are also reverted by Ekdalian.Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Satnam2408, you may please check the recent discussions on User talk:Nobita456. Ekdalian (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This is always the problem when aricles are locked - they're rubbish!
Where do I start? It's so bad, it's all bad! For instance in the lede there is no link to Caste system in India or for that matter India. The article is a crappy cut and paste job which read like a steam of consciousness rather than an informed commentary on the topic. Nothing is written in a clear manner, there is too much of an assumption that a casual reader (like me) already knows about the subject. The article's prose and style is hard to read and understand. It's patently obvious that this article's intended audience are the editors who hold sway over it, ie have WP:OWN issues. They are not selflessly writing this article for people to read, enjoy and learn, they are writing these articles for their own benefit (whatever that might be) and that's why it's crap. For example it mentions in the lede that Brahmins are the highest caste, well what are the other castes? Where's the context to that statement? What does that mean? It's not helped by the fact that much of this article is "guarded" sorry "edited" by non native English speakers because it's bloated and verbose sentence structure don't get to the point with clarity and efficiently, a well known issue with people who learn English but are not native to it. But as no IP (ie one's who provide 80% of all meaningful edits on this site) can edit the article it will stay a steaming pile of the proverbial. Utter garbage IMO. 146.200.202.126 (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can always request a change on the talk page even as an IP and someone will add it to the page if it is well sourced.LukeEmily (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey IP editor, as rightly mentioned by LukeEmily, why don't you mention reliably sourced content which needs to be added? You may also mention content which needs to be replaced or removed along with valid reasons for such proposal! Articles are protected in order to fight persistent vandalism; constructive edits are welcome. Instead of generalizing the entire stuff as 'rubbish' or 'garbage', you could have easily mentioned what all needs to be modified/incorporated in order to improve the article. Ekdalian (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Can somebody add Malayali/Kerala Brahmins at the bottom navigation box?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayali_Brahmin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:63:5954:C11B:2D58:7196:ACC5 (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Brahminhood
"Brahmin" at its inception was a jati. It was also designated as a varna. This double-existence is probably what led the British administrators to coin the word "caste" for both the concepts and pretend that they were talking sense.

This was not the case with the other varnas. Shudra and Vaishya were always varnas, never jatis. Kshatriya was initially a jati, but by the end of the Gupta Empire, there were so few Kshatriyas that they had to treat it as a varna, and admit new groups of people into it.

What this means for our purpose here is that Brahminhood is hard-wired into birth. People cannot be simply given "Brahmin status", unlike for the other varnas. (Kshatriyas were also not simply "given status", but were given concocted genealogies, thereby maintaining the pretense that the Kshatriya expansion was still birth-driven. But whoever was doing the concoction obviously knew what they were doing! "Vaishya status", on the other hand, is not particularly sought after.)

The upshot is that the Brahmins get to say who Brahmins are. Nobody else does. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , exactly, I agree. That is why we have to write the issues with both GSB and Daivadnyas on their respective pages.LukeEmily (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have copied this discussion from the Talk page on Daivadnya because you talk about wider definition on brahminhood and that needs to be discussed here on this page.I hope you are OK with that.

You say, and I quote "People cannot be simply given "Brahmin status". There are numerous examples of Brahman sabhas, and courts affirming Brahmin status of groups such as Vasai deshastha yajurvedi, Gaud saraswat, and also Daivadnya during Maratha empire days and British raj respectively. Just like the Kshatriya cases, the stories on the brahmin status of these communities could have been concocted for various reasons including political expediency.The cited sources can shed more light on these issues.  Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , I think is saying the same thing. Brahmins decide the ritual status in all cases - of course Brahmins are bound by the "laws" of the scriptures. About your other comment, I have been looking at sources over the last few days and both Gaud Saraswats(Shenvi) and Daivadnya had and *still* have disputes about their status(despite what wikipedia incorrectly says). By profession the Shenvis were mostly traders and the latter were Goldsmiths. Bairy has very clearly stated in 2010 that the Brahminhood of the Saraswats in the costal regions of Karnataka is still strongly disputed but wikipedia has proclaimed that they are Brahmins.  I am going through some history of some pages and trying to figure out a pattern of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR by some editors. In the meantime, gathering some more sources. As a side, "using internet/wikipedia for Sanskritization" might be a good research topic. Rather than some PhD thesis that usually focus on a minute issue and expand it, I recommend published academic papers by professors about such disputes. These give a close but generally unbiased 50 ft view instead of a PhD thesis that focusses on a POV 1 inch view and leaving out the big picture or later developments and details. Just my personal opinion.LukeEmily (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Just like any wikipedia article, one also has to cite academic sources when one write a thesis.I can attest to that myself. Anyhow, the two theses I cited had extensive inline citations /footnotes of their own. But here in an academic paper by O'Hanlon, pertinent to the question of the right of Saraswats to be called brahmins. In 1631 Banaras pandit sabha (mostly of Deshastha brahmins)  defended the claims of saraswats to be entitled to perform all of the six karmas allowed to those of full Brahman status. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Jonathansammy, thanks for the link. That was a temporary phase that was overturned. Just looking at the letters is the one inch view I am talking about. For WP:NPOV we have to give all views. The view you have given can also be added but which groups was it for. Anyways, it looks like it was overturned based on quotes below. I am talking about Shenvis(GSB) not Saraswats in the south or other vegetarian GSB. It is not a uniform community. Are the letters talking about Shenvis? Were there disputes after that? What was the effect of the letters? were there counter arguments? Were there letters later on? GSB did not even exist at that time as a joint community(see Conlons's paper). How can we address 's concern Talk:Marathi_Brahmin.

Anyway, here is a summary of quotes from many sources. This is only a partial list I found(some in the last few days):

from Deshpande(University of Michigan) he is talking about GSB:

The Deśasthas, Citpāvans and Karhāḍes were united in their rejection of the brahminhood for the Sārasvatas[text adds that cases were filed against GSB by different brahmins in 1788 ad, 1850 ad and 1864 ad]

'' Bambardekar (1939: 111) cites two documents dated 1863 ad and 1694 ad where the brahmins are listed separately from the Sheṇavīs. He argues that the Seṇavīs appropriated the term Gauḍa-Sārasvata only in the late 19th century. He also cites a letter from a Ṥeṇavī scholar (p. 297): “You are certainly right when you say that the term [...] Saraswata is a term of modern origin. Being myself a so-called [...] Saraswata, I may tell you that this term was invented only the other day to suit the conservative mentality of some of my community people.” It may be noted that British administrative documents from the early 19th century Maharashtra always list brahmins and Shenavis as two separate castes, cf. Parulekar (1945; 1951: 26 ff.)''

''Bambardekar (1939: 242–243) cites some interesting details about a debate on this issue which took place at the court of Shivaji in 1664, and refers to a text titled Śyenavījātinirṇaya (published in the annual report of the Bharat Itihas Samshodhak Mandal, Pune, 1913). The debate in Śivājī’s court evidently concluded that the Ṥeṇavīs, due to their eating of fish, are only trikarmī brahmins.''

From the scholar Ramesh Bairy(2013 opinion):

''At the level of the community as a whole, Brahmins might not be incensed by the Saraswat claim to Brahminhood. But a non-Saraswat Brahmin family will not be very keen on proposing marriage with a Saraswat family. Within the association, the latter are accepted; whereas in Dakshina Kannada, they are officially not part of the Brahmin associations''

Saraswat claim to Brahminhood is still strongly under dispute, particularly in the coastal districts of Karnataka.

From Historian Farias:

Some Brahmins deny the claims of purity of the Saraswat Brahmins of Goa saying that the Saraswat Brahmins inter-married women (non-Brahmin) of the Konkan and so they are not of pure stock

From Conlon(American Historian):

Pathare Prabhu and Gaud Saraswat Brahman communities - two groups that had enjoyed considerable secular success and status in Bombay since the eighteenth century but whose ritual position within the regional varna hierarchy was inferior to that of Maharashtra Brahmans of the Deccan

From Pereira: ''If they had been brought to Goa by Parshurama, earlier than this data, for performing sacrifices and to officiate as priests, then the question arises, how is that in the whole of Konkan and Particularly in Goa, not a single Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra or other Hindu has engaged a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin as his purohit or Bhat? On the contrary, it is found that a large number of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins themselves are engaging non-Gaud Saraswat Brahmiins as their purohits.''

From Gupchup(Historian): Note: Some Shenvis themselves were denying their Brahminhood (the following in not an exact quote - just a smaller version of the big text) Paraphrase : ''The goverment wanted to find out about Shenvis and Palshikars and sent the matter to Jonathan Duncan from Banares. Duncan had a meeting with scholars of Banares who used certain scriptures(the historian mentions Sanskrit quotes from the scriptures) and concluded that neither the Shenvis nor Palshikars were Brahmins. In fact, the Palshikars were (according to the sripture) descended from Bhils''

Brahmins have six vedic duties and Kshatriyas have three. The most distinguishing duties were teaching Vedas to others, taking donation (for priestly services) from other castes and acting as priests for other castes. The 1)Kashmiri Pandits, 2)Koknastha, 3)Karhade 4)Deshastha did all this, did they not? Did the Smartha GSBs do this? DN Gokhale has written I have seen many Saraswats[Shenvis] who curse casteism, and the Kokanasth and Deshastha Brahmins, as they do not allow the Saraswats to sit together for meals...

I think the first step is to get an admin or Sitish to help and supervise changes so we can address Sitush's concerns. Please can you help me? Anyone who is chronically deleting high quality sourced content to needs to be banned from wikipedia( I am talking about editors who periodically come and delete anything that they find not supporting their narrative).LukeEmily (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * What are the "concerns of Sitush"? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , please see sections Talk:Marathi_Brahmin and Talk:Daivadnya and Talk:Daivadnya created by Sitush. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022
Please allow the user to edit this page because it needs updates and recent demographic changes in India. Shivam Kumar 766 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfair redirection
Directing a link to one specific option out of two available ones gives an impression that the editor wants to impose his line of thought on the readers. Ritez (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Linking to a disambiguation page is frowned upon on Wikipedia because the user may not be able to figure out which page is the appropriate one. Are you suggesting that there is more than one Varna option that fits here? --RegentsPark (comment) 16:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, varna (Hindu Astrology) option (also mentioned on the disambiguation page) besides the existing one as long as it remains invisible on the later. -Ritez (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Varna (Hindu astrology)' isn't an option at all; the article on Hindu astrology only mentions it in a table, and that's because this gentleman is preoccupied with it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if it is mentioned in a table, it is linked to whole of humanity. And for your information, I did not added it (varna) in this section, . -Ritez (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Achaman link is broken
Under the pictures, "Achaman" is linked to WRONG article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acham%C3%A1n ( Canary Islands lol) but the actual related Achamana ritual link here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achamana please fix it 117.198.117.106 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, thanks. — kashmīrī  TALK  17:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Modi Supporters
Narendra Modi was given an overwhelmingly warm reception (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/world/asia/narendra-modi-madison-square-garden-obama.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0) when he gave a speech to the primarily Brahmin NRI community in New York. TTCUSM (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Demographics map of India legend
The colors and % of Brahmins in India can't be well understood from the map. 5.169.70.164 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Brahmins as Aryans
I doubt Brahmins even as classified as ethnic groups can simply be called majorly Aryan since we also have dark skinned Brahmins. Proper analysis which isn't selective in sampling must be done. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism by Timovinga
I want to make people aware of @Timovinga who seems to be targeting numerous topics related to casteism and homosexuality, adding numerous texts that are not NPOV and poorly sourced, and removing texts that don't fit with his views. Arind7 (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe the Brahmin article should at least have Brahmin representation in it for sure. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Poorly written
I reverted your edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmin&diff=prev&oldid=1205775469 iff] because it is poorly written: The division between Gauda and Dravida Brahmins may be relevant, as it pertains to the divide between Aryan and Dravidin cultural spheres, but it needs more explanation; and, the pagenumber on Lochtefeld is incorrect. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  07:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "According to Perception of Vijay Nath"
 * "some Brahmins sprung into the families"
 * ",like this he even mentions different type of Brahmins of this category."
 * "According to Kalhana's Rajatarangini (c. 12th century CE) and Sahyadrikhanda of Skandapurana.The Brahmins are broadly classified into two groups."


 * @Joshua Jonathan I had doubt regarding this.First three statements were my attempts to give the same meaning as written in JSTOR.The content is basically no way related to me but let me try to give the same meaning. The division part is not regarding arya or Dravida, it is geographical divisions of Brahmins in India. Ref:Pancha gaud and Pancha dravid, the page exists in Wikipedia. Thank you for pointing out.
 * Brittlee1990 (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The division part is not regarding arya or Dravida take a better look. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  07:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joshua JonathanThis is not related to arya and dravida.This is region named gaud(North of Vindhyas) and Dravida(South of Vindhyas).This is no way related to Arya or Dravid as Maharashtra and Gujarat are also included in Dravida division.Possibly the source explains the best. Brittlee1990 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)