Srivatsan Murali had raised a good question and we have myriad of responses to that. I am wondering why wearing a naamam or having a kudumi should be seen from the point of view of cultural identity ? When I went through some of the comments I could see some disagreements coming only when it was considered as representing the culture. I mean, having naamam/kudumi might have some scientific reasons behind it. For example, naamam could give a good cooling effect to the forehead. More than that it could make the person to remember about God, when looking at the mirrors. So having a naamam could be for one's own self rather than representing a culture. Of course, when many people do this, it becomes a cultural identity but it need not have arisen for that purpose at all. So, if one wears naamam, it may be that he is trying to find his own identity rather than indentifying him with his culture/society. I don't see any logical disagreement with this view.
10 comments:
Hey, Im one of those who share the same opinion. pinch :)
I agree too.. there are a lot of things which we do in our daily lives that have scientific significance. For instance, whenever there is a "suthi podals" in my house, my dad would ask us to wipe the eyes - I used to do it blindly. Until I learned the real reason - the smoke (or ash) could have entered the eye - hence clean it. Simple!.
I concur
the point is that wearing a namam is associated with religion. the principle behind fasting on certain days is to give the body time to clean itself. but since it is blanketed and bundeled as a part of religion, ppl dont follow it.
i agree with u when u say that when wearing a namam one is searcihing for ones own identity, religion at the end of the day is a personal issue.but society doesnt look at it that way, this is what leads to the inherent conflict. wearing a namam implies being an orthodox brahmin. this is where the conflict arises.
Yes. The Vibhuthi is there to remind ppl that, one day u r going to be the ash. to bring a sense of humilty.
Regarding vatsan's comment. One important perspective of tamilnadu's current mind sent has comeout. "namam implies being an orthodox brahmin. this is where the conflict arises".
Ok. what is the conflict that arises by being an orthodox brahmin? Have orthodox brahmins keep themselves in conflict with everybody. Is that something to be ashamed of. A orthodox brahmin is as conflicting as an orthodox christian or orthodox xyz.
But why do we have built in our brains, the relationality between orthodox brahmins and conflict with todays way of life and world.
For me it is like sombody saying "look whole world is having flat nose, you are having a sharp nose. Why do you want to show your genetic identity by having a sharp nose. You are initiating an conflict by showing that your have a lineage with sharp noses. The world is changing. Everybody is with flat noses. Get yourself operated and become flat nosed, or be branded as somebody who holds to past crap."
Are you feeling ridiculous!! Same do i feel when hearing some of the Cultural neutralization arguments.
Yes, Vatsan. That's exactly my point. Why should the society evaluate a person based on his culture ? As you pointed out that's where the conflict arises. Probably if we understand ourself better than understanding ourself through the society, wearing a naamam should be of no problem to anyone.
Why should the society evaluate a person based on his culture ?
Literally speaking..Culture is defined as a way of living.. If that cant be used to evaluate u what else can be..
Sathya yesaaa/noaaaa.. sorry enakke theriyale
ioiio,
I believe you are saying "way of living" for some set of people. I would rather term a culture as an organized way of living, i.e people adhere to some standards/rules. My question is that when we talk to a person, we just concentrate on him rather than his society/culture. Everything just vanishes away, but when we see him from a distance we take into effects his appearence, cultural background and stuffs. Why such double standards ? I mean, why can't we see him/her just as another soul. Why we should evaluate him/her at all ? In case, there is a need for evaluation, why should we chose his cultural background as a basis ? This will go more philosophical if we go on. But, the bottomline is why can't we ignore all such outward differences and focus more on the internal consistencies ?
I think judging people by whatever they sport is kind of 'racial discrimination'. Afterall, skin is what - a dress that everyone sports. When you say people will be people what do you mean by that ? Is it okay to racially discriminate ? What I am saying is that if one just goes by what one is wearing then he is ignorant of something which is more beautiful and profound. But, one can always choose to be ignorant thinking 'ignorance is a bliss'. What can we say to those people ?
I have no ill-feeling about guys with kudumi. Just some word of caution though - you need to maintain it; otherwise, it is going to be difficult with the "myriad" lice wandering freely and knots to untangle.
LOL
Post a Comment