This point was made specific to your question on whether brahmins were prevented from learning different vedic streams. Its not correct to give a name calling like this, comparing with some Vivek which I find abusive. I dont see this as out of context.
It is not "name-calling". Nor is it "abusive". It is called comparison. Its funny that you label a comparison to be "name-calling" and that too "abusive" !!
I compared your reply with that of Vivek who used to ramble off in unrelated directions when one subject was being spoken at hand.
I still feel your reply was so similar to that of Vivek, esp considereing your usage of sayana, genetics, western writers, acharyas, etc which had no connection with the subject at hand.
If you do not like your reply to be compared with that of Vivek, then sorry.
I specifically asked whether this was the the evidence you were speaking of regarding brahminisation of someone. And I gave some specific reasons where I felt there was more interpretation than facts. I didnt follow up with a detailed analysis of every section. But I didnt need to , I said that Brahminisation of people could have taken place, but since this was against the smritis followed by any section, this could not have happened on straight way. I really need to know if there is something was happening on a large scale. That is my only interest.
If you want to know if something like that happened on a large scale, sir, you wud not be asking me this question. Instead you would have done your own reading by now starting with tribal cultures and changes in culture over milleniums. As i mentioned in my reply above, i will blogging on it.
I really did not think you were aggressive because these are common questions. I admit I was agressive when I said "Please ask the reverse questions". To my knowledge , for a lot of things, we only have tradition. If such questions offend you, I am sorry.
I myself ask reverse questions. Nowhere have i said that reverse questions are aggressive.
Instead , it does sound aggressive on your part when you make accusations / claims like "
You are reading scholars of the previous decades who were directly or indirectly influenced by the british thinkers on aryan theory and confusing yourself and raising questions which have no relevance to our tradition".
Anyways, I have replied to your post. In my reply # 475 you can understand for yourself where your have made baseless claims / put things into my mouth / mentioned things out of context.
The tradition is meaningful only when it is properly followed and gives the relevant experience to validate it. If you were looking for historical precedents and evidences which brahmins can give proving this , this and this was followed 2000 years back, we really have no evidence. Every Clan is an island and there is no way we can prove certain things. That was all my point. But the reverse view is certainly not having sufficient evidence to backup atleast for the former there is tradition. But time and again, let me be frank , our elderly people have been thrown into mounam and asked to close their mouths, and this has not been good for the TB Community. The elderly wise cant give a book and say this is correct because it was published 2000 years back. They have a tradition, they say something based on spiritual experience , somethings based on intuition. They dont expect people to agree about them, but think about them. That was my point. I found this atharva veda doubts plainly coming from the books you have read regarding this. My point was not against you, but the original propagators of this line of argument, what was their real attitude to atharva veda.
These are your POVs. Evidences in history is derived from archeological evidence, lingustic evidence, etc. No historian one can make mere claims or push POVs without any shread of evidence.
Firstly they are brahmins today and atleast for 400 years documented now. I know some chitpavans who are taking great effort to keep the lamp of vedic tradition alive.. If someone says that they have a non brahminical origin, is it not offending to the traditional members of this community, who dont hold such a view?
I do not see why wud TBs feel offended when something is mentioned about chitpavans. As such, I do not think anyone would feel offended, except those who nurture a caste-based ego.
Am open to any form of discussion if it be based on facts. If there are people who do not like certain things, then they can very well skip the thread / posts.
I can assume that they are brahmins because I have admitted that they could have external marital links. Does their genetic lineage indicate that they are 100% out of india? No right? So what are the evidences we have to think they are a wholesale convert. Is there something else i tried to convery. I neither contradicted genetics in allowing intermarriage nor have I seen any evidence in genetics to indicate that they are a wholesale convert. I can have strong intuitive feelings about things, and I have the right to let others know but I dont expect people to agree.
I do not understand why are you so stuck on the chitpavans. You have written a considerable amount on chitpavans in both the posts, 461 and 464, addressed to me. I was talking about the difference between laukika and vaidika brahmins. But somehow you have been going on about the chitpavans. Btw, i do not understand what you mean by 'evidence in genetics' to indicate wholesale converts.
I am sorry but your definition of academic is quoting a few books. With the bad experience of what is happening in sociological research,I want to go to the roots. A discussion in such a way is what you want then I request you to not just forward a link containing whole amounts of information , to the extent I dont know which is the specific points you are addressing. I need to know what exactly you are talking about. The discussion of the Boya community being an example.
Well, i don't understand how you get to decide what is my definition of academics. But you are free to assume as you please. I have never considered anything to be accurate just because something is in print.
If you want to go to the roots of any discussion then you will need to present evidences from the vedic texts itself, or from epigraphies / inscriptions or any form of reliable evidence -- not mere claims (btw, the article on boya community is not based on mere claims. And as mentioned earlier you are free to make a new thread to discuss points from that article).
Regards.