On second thoughts I have to retract a couple of names from my list...I believe I am mistaken in including the names Rajakulendran and Edhirveerasingham as names used by Jaffna Brahmins. Apart from only two people I know of..I do not recall any other Jaffna Brahmins having those names. Therefore they were probably very rare cases or probably are from a mixed family. As intermarriage between Vellalas and Brahmins is not uncommon.
That sounds more likely!
Regarding Vellala-Brahmin intermarriage, you are probably giving some of our friends the creeping willies. When an Iyengar gentleman of my acquaintance married an Iyer lady, the Swamiji refused to accept her shev'ke and removed his feet (all Iyengars, except some select families, follow a Swamiji)!
However, Ratnasabapathy is used by Brahmins. One has to add that the title Iyer or Sharma is oft added to the names. Thus its usually Ratnasabapathy iyer.
As for the divisions; yes I believe the divisions between caste-specific names seems someone porous compared to TN. But then again this porousness usually exists between the Vellalas and Brahmins in lanka as they used to have somewhat of a symbiotic relationship from the onset.
This is interesting indeed. My knowledge of the nuances of the Iyer Iyangar division is almost nill as we do not have any Iyengars in lanka. Somehow the Vaishnavite school of Hinduism is conspicuously missing. Even the Hinduism textbook for school it named "Shaiva religion". I guess its a common mistake on the part of those who titled the textbok series because for us Hinduism pretty much equals Shaivism.
In daily life, if one is asked about his religious persuasion, people would say "Shaiva" instead of Hindu. Even though we "mean" Hindu, we use the word Shaiva instead....one would be hard pressed to find someone claiming to be a Hindu instead of Shaiva if inquired about his religion. The same applies to restaurants. Vegetarian restaurants are called Shaiva-restaurants and non-veg ones are called A-Shaiva restaurants.
To top it all...Lankan Christians translate the bible as "veda" in Tamil. Which leads to hilarious(only to an outsider) questions such as "Are you Shaiva or Veda?". If one answers Vedha it means he is a Christian! . People over there do not think it is strange...but I bet anyone not used to the local lingo would be flabbergasted!
Actually, that is in fact a more accurate description than Hindu; we are Saiva, or Vaishnava, or (in the east, particularly) Shakta. I am a Shakta, for instance; if I say so, people in the south immediately stop stealing glances at my unpierced ears and trying to figure out if I am Malayali or Muslim (since I am rather unfortunately clearly not Tamizh). The downside to this identity crisis was being stopped at the Dhanvantari shrine (we are Vaidyas, hence the keen interest) at the great shrine at Srirangam, on the grounds that only Hindus were allowed entry into the Garbhagriha.
I apologize for not getting your joke as I do not know what SIB means.
It is said, somewhat uncharitably, by persons unknown and entirely unwilling to be known, that there are three ego-states among South Indian Brahmins: I, Iyer and Iyengar.
Actually I was reluctant to share my second name and that why the second name has been shortened as 'Sri' from the name of the presiding deity of Tirupati.
9/10 people bearing that name in TN will invariably be an Iyer or Iyengar and only the remaining one will be from a different caste.
And that is waht I meant when I said that name was a trademark of Brahmins.
True; but due to that very reason, it is a most popular name among both Iyers and Iyengars. Coming to think of it, there are a number of Vellala Srinivasans I know as well.
Actually Iyengars in TN consider the Iyers to be of a lower caste and rarely do they marry them. And while Iyers are mostly Shaivites the Iyengars are exclusively Vaishnavites.And hence this need to differentiate.
They do, do they? Actually, they do, in a kind of taking-it-for-granted insouciant kind of way that drives Iyers completely crazy.
You need to research a little into Vadagalai and Thengalai, and you will understand a little more about the Iyengars. And I was deeply astonished to find you saying that Iyers are mostly Saiva, but Iyengars are only Vaishnava. So you know about Vaishnava Iyers. Impressed!
May be because the Cholas who completed the conquest of Sri Lanka under Raja Raja and Rajendra were staunch Shaivites and even Raavan of Lanka was supposed to be the most devout Bhakt of Lord Shiva.
Here you would do well to consult time lines. Saivism was quite widespread in Tamizh Nadu in the early mediaeval period. It was consolidated by Sankaracharyya in around 800 AD. Vaishnavism, on the other hand, in the sense of Vishishtadvaita, Monism with Attributes, was an introduction of the 11th century. Sriramanujacharya's relationship with the Chozha court was never easy. His expulsion or his self-exile, whichever version of the story we find more plausible, was either under Kulothunga I or Kulothunga II.
It is not at all surprising to find a strong affinity to Saivism in Sri Lanka, both before and after the Chozha.
This is a most plausible explanation...and probably the main reason why Shaivite Hinduism came to be the only school of Hinduism found in the island.
Sounds reasonable.