Brahmins also Dravidians: Sankaracharya

February 23, 2004

Chennai, Feb 23: During the British rule of India, historians had "twisted" the history of the nation and blacked out the fact that Indian Vedic culture was the first in the world, Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswati, said here today.

Releasing a book on the history of Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, he said the historians had floated the theory that the Indus Valley culture was the first one in the world, forgetting the "fact that Vedic culture was the first one".

This had created a "misconception" that Brahmins, who were earlier settlers in the southern parts of India, came from north India.

This had made the Brahmins in south India to be called Aryans though they were one of the earliest settlers. This had developed a "hatred" towards the Brahmins in this part of the country, particularly in Tamil Nadu, he said.

The book, brought out by the Brahmin Research Centre, was an attempt to disprove that Brahmins in the south were Aryans, he said, adding that they were part and parcel of "Dravidians". (Our Correspondent)

February 24, 2004

Which implies what?

That there is an aryan-dravidian issue here?

That the Vedic culture wasn't derived from aryans?

That the Brahmin caste wasn't introduced by the Aryans?

I don't really see the point in making the claim that the Brahmins who settled in south India were pure Dravidians and not Aryans. This would suggest that there is an Aryan-Dravidian conflict.

brinthan · February 24, 2004

Yes, there's a hatred towards Brahmins in Tamil Nadu. Because, they forgot to understand the how real Caste System works. And I don't blame Dravidians for that. Because in Kali Yuga, Brahmins made laws that would make them superior. They made laws such as those who (other than Brahmins) wants to study should be put to death and all. I think that real caste system was destroyed by Brahmins. Because they were the one who held Vedas after Kali Yuga started. In real caste system, one's caste is determined according to his characteristic and career. For example, see in Mahabharat, when Karnan is about to fight Arjuna in a competition, Thuroonar raised and said that Karnan cannot fight Arjuna because he is a sudras. In that time, Thuriyoothanan got up and said that he would make Karnan as a kind (kshastriyas) then he would qualify to fight Arjuna. This shows that caste system depends on the career. And another example, Karnan learnt the ashtryas (war skills) from (I forgot who that is) his guru lying that he is a Brahmin, because his guru told him he would only teach Brahmin. But when his guru was sleeping in Karnan's lap, a bug bites Karnan and comes out of other side. When Guru woke up and see that he said "Only a kshastryas could take that much pain, a brahmin would never take that much pain" And doesn't that explain that caste system depends on the characteristic? So a son of Brahmins not always qualify to be a brahmin, a son of kshastriyas not always qualify to be a kshastriyas. Brahmins in Kali Yuga changed all the laws around, and I don't think that nowadays Brahmins are the pure ones. Am I being wrong here? Someone correct me if I am.