Just because people make it available to all does not mean it is allowed. Just like certain rites can be performed by only married couples and not by a bachelor there are eligibility requirements for everything including the Gayatri. Arya Samaj may do as they please, but I deeply disagree with their philosophies. They say they accept Vedas but reject Smritis and other works such as Puranas, and they say because only Vedas are authoritative and Puranas and Smritis are written by Rishis. However, though Vedas may be authoritative, the hymns are only given to us by Rishis. So Vedas and Puranas are both given by Rishis and both are authoritative, you can not accept Vedas saying Puranas have biases of humans (Rishis).
There seems to be an issue with your understanding of shruti and smriti. The vedas and the upanishads, the BG, etc are examples of shruti. The shruti is what has been heard or given by Bhagwan and is more authentic per se. Of course the human bias may be there but marginally lesser as it is hard to deviate by too much.
The smritis are not written by divine guidance but rather are a product of their times, and as we know, time is not stagnant and thereby they seem to lose their value over time and become incompatible with our lives. The various dharma shastras are an example of this.
The puranas and ithiasa are a recounting of what has happened and are therefore not as authoritative in nature. That is why, though the BG comes as part of the Mahabharata it is a shruti and not a smriti as it is given by Bhagwan to Arjuna.
I do partly agree with you on the issue of enunciation of mantras. But even for that we have a remedy which is the saying of the pranava mantram before any mantra- Doing so takes away any bad effects such as mispronunciation etc.
The core issue in my opinion seems to be your dogmatic stance on what is "right" or "wrong". The beauty of Sanatana Dharmam lies in the factum that there is no "right" or "wrong". What Shankaracharya believes and propunds is not what Ramanujacharya believes to be the the case; However, you have many of us who consider both of them to be knowledgeable and "right" in their own way.
Your last point is exactly what is wrong and what I will tell people not to do. You say people should learn themselves. This religion does not accept that. That is why the Guru is given such a high status in our Shastras and Vedas. "Acharya Devo Bhava" states Shikshavalli. Vedic mantras are not even to be chanted or studied without a Guru as without a Guru people can easily misinterpret the religion. I can give another example. Reading many verses in the Bhagavad Gita such as 2.42, 2.43, 2.45 people may come to the conclusion that Vedas give material pleasure and that Krishna is advocating against yajna and only promoting Bhakti. However, when one reads the works of Acharyas such as Mahaperiyava, we understand, Shri Krishna is talking about the Mimamsakas who accept the Karma Kanda and reject the Upanishads and that Shri Krishna encourages Vedic yajna but says we should not attatch ourselves to heaven yielded by Yajnas and we should focus on Moksha. Hence, Acharyas are incredibly necessary. ONE MUST NEVER ATTEMPT TO LEARN ON HIS OR HER OWN.
You seem to be forgetting that the true guru is Bhagwan in various forms. The path to enlightenment cannot be done on your own- that part is true but the idea that the guru ought to manifest in a physical form is wrong. If that was the case, then the Vedas are to be heavily discredited can they not? There is nothing wrong in learning mantras through different mediums such as the pusari of a temple or on the net; Though one has to be careful and make sure that they are not saying something wrong.
When it comes to the decoding the texts, I am of the opinion that it cannot be done for you by a guru but rather it is upto each, our Karmas help guide us to what we have to learn from the texts and therefore there is no one size fits all. Such diversion in thought processes have given us different schools of thought like the advaita-vedanta, vishvavedanta, dvaita-vedanta to name a few. This is why the bharatiya form of education has always been conversations between people and how they interpret the various texts.
So I feel we should encourage young people to be adherent to religion/ spirituality even though our views because of our age and understanding differs from their views.
I feel that I may not be the right person to comment upon this as I myself am still a teenager, but Ma'am I think this sort of a mindset is the reason why our dharmic tradition has been on the decline. Do you not think it is wrong to encourage views that are based on misunderstandings of the texts or what has been taught? I believe the moral duty of a periva lies in calling out such misunderstandings as they too have gone through this and have learnt a lot. Carelessly encouraging views that are grossly wrong may be bad in the long run.
This was just my take on the conversation. I apologise if I have hurt anyone's sentiments.
