Wealth is a by product of one’s effort and luck- nothing to with one’s caste. Majority of Brahmins are ver poor as unlike the muezzins the discriminatory India govt does not pay them a salary.
But being poor is not a prerequisite for being Brahmin - it is called supply & demand in free market economies.
You're describing a sanyasin.
A typical Brahmin, like anyone else is recommended to go through the usual stages of life including that of a Grihastha. And as a Grihastha, one is expected to pursue wealth and material wellbeing.
I'm all for telling off casteist scum but it probably helps to be accurate.
A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin.
> the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage,
You linked to the section that specifically prescribes conduct during the Grihastha stage. That contradicts your assertion that Brahmins are supposed to skip the Grihastha stage.
> A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin.
The very section you linked to says He shall be either one possessing a granary full of grains. Accumulation of wealth is explicitly allowed.
"‘Four kinds of livelihood for householders have been described by the wise—the first is the possessing of a granary-full of grains; then the possessing of a jar-full of grains; then the possessing of not enough for the morrow; and the last is the method of the pigeon (having nothing beyond the present meal); among these the following is superior to the preceding.’
If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage. If you define this to mean the stage of one's life where material wealth is accumluated, then you would be correct that Brahmins pass through this stage, but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit.
Therefore, by definition, a Brahmin as historically defined cannot be wealthy, anymore than a Catholic priest can bear children and still call themselves a priest.
> Four kinds of livelihood for householders
The entire section is describing the conduct of householders. You are confusing the four permissible means of livelihood for householders with the four stages of life.
> If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage.
Again, where the does the text imply that Brahmins skip a stage? This is something you've just made up.
> but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit
Again, not implied anywhere in the text and something you made up.
A rich Brahmin is, therefore by definition, not a Brahmin...and should be regarded as an outcaste and shunned.
And that's exactly what I tell them when they judge me for not having a caste.