Is this blasphemy?

[shaheediyan]

It doesn't matter in which context the word Brahmanism is used by western or modern academics, the issue here is the derivation of it's use from Sri Guru Granth Sahib where there is theme of hypocrisy and superiority of Brahmans during the Bhagats and Gurus era.

It is this culture that the 'modern' word Brahmanism is being used for - be it that the Brahmans being refered to are not 'true' Brahmans or 'high order' egocentric Brahmans that you have mentioned above (thinking lowly of other Brahmans). Guru Sahiban of course give the true and correct definition for Brahmans as they do for Muslims.

It is simply a case of accepted generalisation - similar to your generalisation of Sikhs 'whose house should be burned to the ground'. Your use of the terms Sikh is also not correct - as the definition is clearly given in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Bhai Gurdaas Ji's Vaaran.

It's simply another case of snobbery on your part - when you very well know the context the word is being used in.

[Darbandi Baba]

Shaeediyan wrote:

"It doesn't matter in which context the word Brahmanism is used by western or modern academics, the issue here is the derivation of it's use from Sri Guru Granth Sahib where there is theme of hypocrisy and superiority of Brahmans during the Bhagats and Gurus era.

It is this culture that the 'modern' word Brahmanism is being used for - be it that the Brahmans being refered to are not 'true' Brahmans or 'high order' egocentric Brahmans that you have mentioned above (thinking lowly of other Brahmans). Guru Sahiban of course give the true and correct definition for Brahmans as they do for Muslims.

It is simply a case of accepted generalisation - similar to your generalisation of Sikhs 'whose house should be burned to the ground'. Your use of the terms Sikh is also not correct - as the definition is clearly given in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Bhai Gurdaas Ji's Vaaran.

It's simply another case of snobbery on your part - when you very well know the context the word is being used in. "

1. Although the Adi Granth does talk about brahmins it does not use any Indian equivalent of the term "brahmanism" either in morphology or meaning. So your remark about the use of "brahmanism" in gurbani is out of place. It is as it were an anachronism. The "ism" terms are expressed by the suffix -vada and are used in Sanskritised Panjabi and Hindi. The term brahmanvad is a neologism in Panjabi which is what you translate by "Brahmanism" which is of course a problem as the slot for Brahmanism has already been used and that in any case it is in and of itself semantically incoherent.

2. There is a thing called "language" that human beings use to communicate irrespective of their level of intelligence. One of the fundamentals of linguistics is that both the meaning and the word itself need to be shared by the community of speakers and need to be standardised so as to avoid everyone having their definitions of a word.

If all of us would take the word "house" and each would attach a meaning other than that of "four walls and a roof" and instead replace the standard meaning by pizza, kebab, car we would have a society where people speak like this:

- He just ordered a pepperoni house

- He ate a turkish house with fries

- He drove his house whilst chatting on his mobile phone

Everyone would recognise that it not only makes no sense but that communication is rendered impossible because of individual definitions of a word.

It so happens that the term Brahmanism is not found in gurbani and is a scientific term to define a very specific religious movement. When Sikhs write:" Yeah its all coz of bahmanizm yeah coz bahmans got too much nafrat innit" it may be understood by the small community of ghetto Sikhs that populate the suburbs of British and Canadian cities BUT it means zero to any person who has chosen to use standard language in order to be understood by all out of sheer respect for the idea of clear communication.

Now, much to your relief, all is not lost...

There another term used in English and commonly understood by all that translates exactly what most of the forum members have been complaining about: the belief in caste supremacy, be it jatt, ramgharia or brahman. It's called "castism". In clear it means the same as racism except it is relevant to caste. Open any Indian newspaper using standard English such as India Today and you'll notice its use.

Isn't language a wonderful thing? Now you finally have a word that everyone else on earth understands with which you are able to communicate your grievances about caste related exclusivism. Now I know that some may think:" yeah bahudar u sulla juz coz you know how 2 write ur name correctly dont mean nuffin coz ur full of tati"

As I am used to these sort of remarks I'll just opt for the "blase puffing at my ghalyun" pose and say:"Whatever now you know how everyone else speaks. Go forth into the world and communicate your thoughts and sin no more"

Ramadan Mubarak

[shaheediyan]

I agree with your 'correct' defintion and usage of Brahman'ism', but that was not the issue here, it was the context the word was being used in here - which refered to a Gurbani rooted criticism of hypocritic and corrupted Brahmans - the ism being added to denote the distinct and specific culture/beliefs/practices of these false Brahmans. It's not a big deal - as you very well know language is an evolving animal. lol.

[unbreakable]

..

[Darbandi Baba]

Unbreakable wrote:

You still haven't explained what "Brahmanism" is?

Actually I have done so:

"1. Brahmanism is an outdated word used by Indologist scholars of the early 20th century for the Smarta tradition as founded by Shankaracharya with its synthetic attempt to reconcile all theistic Indic religions (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Ganapatya, Surya worship) into one coherent theistic system of belief and liturgy. "

Maybe I should have used the term "Snatan Dharm" instead of Hindu-ism!!!

Sanatan Dharma is a late neologism as well not found in early Indian sacred texts. All you have is separate religions (vaishnavism, Smartism, Shaivism,Shaktism etc). As a civilisation they all share the same codes of law like in Japan Tendai, Shingon, Zen and Ryobu religions shared the common Shinto social rituals for marriage. But there is no such thing as the idea of a Sanatan Dharma during the classical period.

So, what you are saying is, that uneducated jatts are the problem, not part of the problem, but the actual problem, who want "revenge" from non-jatts and had been waiting for centuries to do this?

I believe that they are part of the problem, but a small one. But I don't think it is as simple as this, even though some would say it is.

You are entitled to your opinion. When 70 % of a community discriminates against the rest I would define it as a big problem. But then again it's all a matter of perspective.

have nothing against hindus, brahmins..etc. I am against discrimination on all levels of every kind against anybody. Its the evil individual I am against.

If that is so use the word castism which is more accurate and understood by all instead of Brahmanism which means something completely different.

as you are a former scholar

I didn't know I had stopped being an academic...

[unbreakable]

..