Dear Narayan, before I provide my answers to your questions I ask you to keep in mind that I was talking about Shri kalyankumar's view that there was an idyllic vedic age in which all varnas lived in strict separation and also working for the good of everyone. In this discussion, what he thinks of as Vedic age is what I have to go by. In other words, I have to take his definition of Vedic age and show that his highly romanticized view of that time is just a myth. My definition of Vedic age is irrelevant in this discussion and Shri kalyankumar would have rejected it as such.
So, please read my comments from that post in this context.
Alright, now I will answer your questions that are tangential to what I was talking to Shri kalyankumar about.
Here you have to take the position and state clearly whether you consider upaniSad period also as traditional vedic period or not. You just cannot stand at the boundry line and depending upon how the discussion proceeds shift your stand from one position to another.
My considered view, for what it is worth, is, it is difficult to prove conclusively one way or another. But my educated guess is, it is not, i.e. the uttara-mimamsa (UM) period should not be counted as Vedic. I think UM is a response to the intense intellectual challenge to ritualistic poorva-mimamsa (PM) coming from several sources. It may even have been a case of repudiation of PM and the Brahmnical domination of the rituals.
Also, look at some common threads in the Upanishadic stories.
When Svetaketu comes back from his Vedic studies Uddalaka tells him there is something more important than PM. Svetaketu's response is that his guru did not know about it. You can see a similar theme in the story about Narada and Sanatkumara. Nachiketas was quite upset with his father bothered more about cows than real knowledge.
Then there is this strange scene described in Chandogya that depicts the procession of Vedic Brahmanas in performance of Vedic rituals to a procession of dogs, each holding in its mouth the tail of the dog in front and chanting "Om, let us eat! Om, let us drink!"
From these I make this educated guess that UM is probably an attempt to downplay rituals in response to competing religions, and they went even to the extent of putting down some parts of the rituals. I know these are not clinching and convincing evidence for the position I stated above, that is why I say this is my opinion.
Here we are discussing about the situation as obtaining in upaniSads, hence vedas. Where is the concept of "samanya dharma" in vedas? Can you quote some references?
What I said was, "Being truthful is supposed to be a samanya dharma". The
Kamakoti.org site has truthfulness under the category, "Dharmas Common To All". Whether the concept of "samanya dharma" is in the vedas or not, you may clarify. In any case, I standby my criticism that there is no cause to appropriate "truthfulness" to Brahmins as Gautama did.
For discussions to be objective, your impressions that Charavaks were most likely brutally supressed does not mean anything. What historical records can you cite in support of your impressions?
Narayan, you are asking the impossible, there is no clinching historical record for almost anything from that far back. I suspect you can't produce any historical record for almost all of the Brahmnical beliefs today. Sorry Narayan, this seems to me a cheap shot, especially considering the fact I did not claim my view as a historical fact. For the sake of objectivity, let me cite my exact words (emphasis added now):
"Charvaka was another who were most likely brutally suppressed to the extent only caricatured fragments of their writings are available, that too as poorvapaksha by Vedantins who have every incentive to portray them in as poor a light as they can, and they did."
There are some historical records as to how those who go against the establishment view are treated. In Ramayana itself sage Jabala was smacked down by the would be King and he wisely retreated.
Tamilnadu was fully dominated by Buddha and Jaina religion. There are archeological evidence to show the land was littered with Buddha Viharas and Jaina temples. Thirumangai Azhvar's life story includes a narration of the Azhvar raiding a Buddha Vihara in Nagappatinam and making away with untold riches. Where are all these viharas and temples?
In a time much closer to our own, when Ramanuja converted the Jaina ruler in Thondanur into SV, the accounts say thousands of Jainas were murdered. Some may say these were only symbolic, but, if they are subjected to the same "historical record" standard you want to subject me to, I am sure they will have none.
Also, Ramanuja's own guru and sishya, Periya Nambi and Kuresan were tortured because they wouldn't subscribe to the royally approved religion.
These are instances of brutality visited upon opposing POV within theism itself, what brutality Charvakas must have been subjected to is anybody's guess.
Anyway, the short answer to your question is, "No", I don't have any historical records to present to you.
You are free to hold on to your opinions as you like. But it does not mean anything substantial. If you did not know, "tittri" is a bird that consumed the vomit of sage yajnavalkya and thus formed taittiriya shAkA of yajurveda. Neither the vedic people nor the taittiriyas have shown any resentment to such a legend.
Sage Dirghatamas is the "dhrishta" of Asya Vamasya sukam of Rig veda. An etymological analysis of the name would translate his name as "long/sustained darkness/ignorance". But the vedic people did not consider it as derogatory. There is no purpose in imposing current day prejudice on the vedic people for caricaturing or writing.
No Narayan, this is not what I am talking about. What the Vedic people considered derogatory I have no idea, and I suspect you have none either. But, the caricatured presentation of Charvaka is of much later time period, starting from the resurgence of Brahmnical Vedantic religions, circa 900 CE. I am sure you have looked at the verses attributed to Charvaka, you may decide on your own what to make of it.
Make out the case and we can see where discussions go from there.
Please see above for my reasons.
You arrive at strange conclusions. Please give me historical accounts or evidences that brahmanas indeed received the high dakshinaus. What they demanded is immaterial, what they received is pertinent to the point. Please give historical account and not what vedas claim, as because according to you vedas are fictional. Quoting fiction to prove a reality is a no-no.
Shri Sangom is my reference for this. He wrote about it several times, unfortunately we don't have him posting now.
If you want historical records we will be at an impasse for the reasons I have already stated above. I can only present a reasonable argument, whether to accept it or not is your prerogative.
By the very nature of the trade, ritual and dhakshina are designed for the benefit of the Brahmana making a living. We see it acted out in the present day life. It is not unreasonable to think this was the way it was during Vedic periods also, it is human nature. I am sure not all of them were motivated just by dhakshina, but that it was for most, can be seen by story after story in purans in which Brahmanas go to the royal court in search of wealth, cattle, land etc.
First of all decide whether upaniSads are vedic or not. We can take up the discussion after your stand is clarified.
I have already addressed this question earlier in this post.
BTW, you seem to betray annoyance, why? Please note, I was answering Shri kalyankumars's distasteful comment that a Shudra was born to perform physical labor and by doing so can elevate towards moksham. In this context I noted moksham is not a Vedic concept, but Upnishadic one, and note, I said let us leave that aside. I wanted to leave that aside because that was not a relevant matter in the context of what I was arguing. Now Narayan, you are annoyed with me and want me to not leave that aside.
Your conclusions are very strange. You abhor second hand information, but ferret out what you consider as "fiction" as "evidence" in support of brahminism as you put it.
Narayan, now you are taking potshots, please read my comment in its entirety. I dealt with it giving it the benefit of doubt.
Strictly from logical point of view, why should they? Arent you the one who has been giving out the reason that one's personal experience should not be generalised?
Yes, yes, but I am not the one generalizing. They are the ones citing personal anecdotes to make sweeping statements, so here, there is another personal anecdote, deal with it, is what I am saying. You can't say EVR was a goon and also say look he respects true Brahmins, which is it, pick one and stick with it.
Narayan, what is this, why are you nitpicking like this? I am ready to have a broad dialog with you. But you have been reluctant for your own reasons, always just making a post and then retreating. I still can't figure out what your argument is. If you think I am full of crap, then fine, say so, get it over with. On the other hand if you want a dialog with me, please state your argument without taking potshots, please.
Who told you that sandhyavandanam is the most important vedic ritual? Please quote the specific authority. I did not find anywhere in vedas that Vishwamitra (the dhrshta of gayatri mantram) performed sandhyavandanam. You have stated with authority that it is a vedic ritual, hence my question.
Narayan, this is what everybody says, it is built around Vedic mantras, Acharyas say the one thing a Brahmin can never abandon is Sandhya, whatever he may let go, do the sandhya.This is what I was saying, contrasting it with the singing and dancing Shri kalyankumar was talking about. Taking this out of the context of the discussion and asking me for documentary evidence is the last thing I expected from you. Alright, now you tell me, is it a Vedic ritual or not?
Cheers!
Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx
