Theory of Aryan Invasion and Interpretting Scriptures

[Raghy]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

i doubt any NB in the world would contribute for the development of TB's with good spirit. its always fun and joy for them to kindle brahmins.

Sri.Shiv Sir,

Greetings. There are many small temples in many villages or small towns with Brahmin priests. Almost in all cases, NBs support the Brahmin priest and their family. Even in my village, now there are over 1,000 NB families where as there are only 5 brahmin families. In all the time in memory, NBs would come to help the brahmin familes even witthout a formal request; at the same time, NBs seldom would interfere with the brahmin families.

I am compelled to object the quoted message from you, please.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

To all the members who question Sow.Happy Hindu's presence in this forum -

Greetings. Every person should be viewed firstly as a human being. Sow.Happy Hindu voices her opinion in this forum on various subjects, mainly on history. Personally, I don't see why anyone should object to her participation. Secondly, she is a honest lady who declared outright that she is not a brahmin. Decent human beings should respect a person's honesty. Moreover, Humanity started many many milleniums before. Initially there was no caste system; in the future, there may not be caste system. even now, caste system prevails in one small section of the world. So, caste system comes; caste system goes; but humanity continues. One should learn to look at the 'big picture'.

I request the forum to pay the respects due to Sow.Happy Hindu as a human being, please. It does not take too much to behave like decent human beings. (Yes, my message implies, taunting Sow.Happy Hindu on caste line is not decent).

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

Will reply to the other posts in a couple of days. Just a quick note to ShivKC.

Shiv,
On the same note, can one 'doubt' if no TB in this world would contribute to the development of NBs with good spirit, or that its always joy for TBs / Bs to make fun of NBs ? Is it a good idea to make sweeping generalizations like that?

Regards.

smt.happyhindu, so both of our statement make it clear the NB or B not going to help each other. and you also said clearly B are making fun of NB. so both are poles apart. in this juncture, my question is again validated. would and how would the NBs contribute for the good of TBs? if so in what way, other than making fun of scriptures and tb culture.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ B. Krishnamurthy

"TO ALL,
Supreme court (OF INDIA) in its judgement in Criminal Appeal no: 11 of 2011 have opined that 92% of Indians are only immigrants(of course thousands of Years before).This includes Aryans, Dravidians etc
and only the Tribals who are now categorised as SCEDULED TRIBES are the real residents of India from the beginning.They have also made a mention of Aryan invasion in their detailed judgement."

Neither Happyhindu nor I were proponents of the AIT, and the debate wasn't about that.

The Supreme Court of India will come up with any excuse to help the downtrodden, that is the work of a government. The idea of "Aryan invasion" goes to project the history of USA, into that of India - which is what a thing like Aryan Invasion is based on.

Your own comment would go as far to say that the "original inhabitants" of India could have only been tribals with no ability to urbanize or expand. Which is a dubious argument again based on the projection of USA's position of "native americans". Nothing points to it. If anyone is academically following the AIT, they would have come against the numerous inconsistencies and fabricated nonsense which even foreign universities teach, while India's NCERT board keeps its old material of study.

Btw, many of the tribal populations themselves claim descendancy from "aryans" of the old legends. I would give credit to ANYONE here who can even point to me that there was an "Aryan", "Dravidian" distinction or dicotomy predating the British invention/fabrciation of it.

There is no "real residents" "from the beginning", at some point various populations (includes tribals like Nuristan Kalash) migrated, and if traced early enough from Africa or the Arabian peninsula too (by the idea and models of human migration). Merely them being "tribal" lets most people assume they are native. The Kalash people for one, are tribals (in today's Pakistan) and are descended from Greeks. They are many "native" people who are not part of tribal society.

The assumption that only tribal people could be the "natives" only shows what a low self image most Indians carry about people from their land, which is why lighter skinned (more European-like looking) people would separate themselves as saying "we are Aryans" blah blah. None of it is history, but fiction if one gives a deeper reading.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Nara, Raghy

I thought I would reply and transfer the tangent at which is thread is going to, to the revelant topic: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/5639-political-social-issues-concerned-tbs.html

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[happyhindu]

smt.happyhindu, so both of our statement make it clear the NB or B not going to help each other. and you also said clearly B are making fun of NB. so both are poles apart. in this juncture, my question is again validated. would and how would the NBs contribute for the good of TBs? if so in what way, other than making fun of scriptures and tb culture.

Shiva,
This is a typical case of twisting words. I "asked" the below:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On the same note, can one 'doubt' if no TB in this world would contribute to the development of NBs with good spirit, or that its always joy for TBs / Bs to make fun of NBs ? Is it a good idea to make sweeping generalizations like that? "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a fact that smrithis (which for a strange reason are called "shastras") are about labor division laws. Just because questions are raised about the validity of such "shastras", does not mean that anyone is making fun of scriptures or TB culture. And btw, these "shastras" do not belong to TBs alone. I did not say that Bs are making fun of NBs. Kindly do not put words into my mouth.

If you threesome (Swami, You and 'Pannvalan') have a problem with my participation here, it would be better to talk to Praveen about it. I will gladly post whatever details i have collected wrt to hindu works, castes and tribes (and their origins), etc to a blog. By shutting out voices which question the preachings of "brahmin leaders" is not going to take the community anywhere.

Shiv, you ask would the NBs contribute to the welfare of TBs. For someone who runs a website on temples, folks must be aware that without NBs most of the major temples wud not even be standing today. And if NBs had not laid down their lives against muslims, most brahmins wud not have remained alive either. Till date afaik, NBs contribute to temple maintenance. I suppose it is easy to ask such a question today in the quest for an exclusive identity.

Please do not try to own hinduism. It belongs to everyone else as much as it belongs to you. And every hindu has the right to care about the religion as much as you do.

Having said that, may I ask, how much are TBs helping other TBs? In education or healthcare? Apart from matchmaking weddings a particular trust does not seem to be doing anything else. So do you expect NBs to help TBs to get married? Wud that be called helping TBs?

Quite a few ppl i know have rendered free healthcare assistance to TBs. I myself contribute to hindu orphanages....even recently my mom ensured that a temple priest gets a fixed amount every month.... Is there any necessity for anyone to publicise what they do?

Swami says Non zoarashtrians are not allowed into their temples. True. Similarly, non muslims are not allowed into mecca. Zoarashtrianism and islam are religions not castes. IMO no one can deny anyone entry in Hindu temples based on caste. Nothing in hinduism belongs to brahmins alone.

Praveen,
Am quite tired of either of the 3 (Shiva, Swami, Pannvalan) questioning my participation here (Pann does it each time he gets a chance in odd unrelated places exactly like his friend Venkat and now Shiv is following suit). I request you to kindly intervene and let me know what should be the right thing to do. I will happily accept whatever you decide.

Regards.

 

[Nara]

.....Am quite tired of either of the 3 (Shiva, Swami, Pannvalan) questioning my participation here (Pann does it each time he gets a chance in odd unrelated places exactly like his friend Venkat and now Shiv is following suit).

Folks, I wish to express my strong support for Happyhindu and condemn with equal vigor these attempts to question her identity. This must be completely unacceptable, I don't know why more voices are not being heard. Stand up for the right thing folks and be heard.

Cheers!

 

[sarma-61]

If you threesome (Swami, You and 'Pannvalan') have a problem with my participation here, it would be better to talk to Praveen about it. I will gladly post whatever details i have collected wrt to hindu works, castes and tribes (and their origins), etc to a blog. By shutting out voices which question the preachings of "brahmin leaders" is not going to take the community anywhere.

Smt. HappyHindu,

I don't know if I am qualified to advise you but it looks to me it will be much better and more useful to people in general if you start a blog and let us share your vast knowledge without the trouble of all that effort you put in. Kindly let me know the url of the blog. Of course this does not mean i want you out from here - on the contrary i wish you continue.

now, to a bit of my pov pl. - you say "By shutting out voices which question the preachings of "brahmin leaders" is not going to take the community anywhere." That exactly seems-to me at least-to be the aim- a great insistence on preserving status quo ante, even if all community members have, individually and family-wise, moved far far away to be even having any resemblance to what the text-book brahmin ought to look as, act as and behave as. Even the "brahmin leaders" or mutt heads have changed a lot but they do not dare to change the laws. There is an old communist slogan in kerala "change the rules yourself, otherwise the rules themselves will change you!".(mattuvin chattangale swayamallengil. mattumathukalee ningale thaan).

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

TO ALL,
I also support the views of Happy Hindu.NBs specially NAGARATTARS have helped the Brahmin Community a lot.Even in my native place THIRUVANAIKOIL(outskirts of TIRUCHIRAPALLI) there were two Choultries
namely RANGOON REDDIAR choultry and PAPAMMAL CHOULTRY.IN both the choultries only brahmin Boys were admitted.They can remain there have free food and have education from 6th Std till post-graduation.
People from Tiruchi would have heard of 'CHINNAIA PILLAI CHOUTRY a well known place between Chintamani and Main Guard Gate.
I have more Friends from NB community.In my experience One can always trust a NB more than TB.
I do not understand why such issues are raised from time to time.It is not necessary that one should agree with the views/opinions of all members of this Forum.Let the SPIRIT of TOLERANCE be cultivated by one and ALL
and make this Forum a platform for sharing of Knowledge.

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Shri.Vivek,
From your posting it is not clear whether you had gone through the full judgement. I consider Mr.Kailash Nath Katju as a very learned person.Of course I had a feeling as to why the Judge should write so much about
the past and about Ekalavya and Dronacharya while delivering the judgement in the case of a Tribal Woman.Perhaps the cruelty caused to that woman by the society would have stirred his moral conscience.
The judgement came as a news item in the HINDU paper dated 11th January,2011.

 

[ShivKC]

Shiva,
outh.

If you threesome (Swami, You and 'Pannvalan') have a problem with my participation here, it would be better to talk to Praveen about it.


Shiv, you ask would the NBs contribute to the welfare of TBs. For someone who runs a website on temples, folks must be aware that without NBs most of the major temples wud not even be standing today. And if NBs had not laid down their lives against muslims, most brahmins wud not have remained alive either. Till date afaik, NBs contribute to temple maintenance. I suppose it is easy to ask such a question today in the quest for an exclusive identity.


Praveen,
Am quite tired of either of the 3 (Shiva, Swami, Pannvalan) questioning my participation here (Pann does it each time he gets a chance in odd unrelated places exactly like his friend Venkat and now Shiv is following suit). I request you to kindly intervene and let me know what should be the right thing to do. I will happily accept whatever you decide.

Regards.

shmt.happyhindu, please be clarified, i have noting against your participation here, i welcome you here very much. again be clarified, i am not a member of any threesome club here.

mine was a social question, about the genuine social contribution of NB's towards TBs. you also answered it by narrating about the temple maintenace by nb, protecting brahmins during wars etc.. As simple as that, you gave the answer to my social question.but, all of a sudden, why are u twisting the topic and driving it towards 'personal issue'? you having already projected it as a personal issue, now you may also answer try to answer this question. What & how an NB member could contribute to this TB.com forum.. in what ways and means? This is a very personal, forum centered question, and not social-community question. you may avoid to answer this.

but take it from me, i always welcome your participation here, and in enjoy your diverse views, and i have noting personal against. remember you have only projected me as a threesome and tagged me in to a club, whoom the members i dont know much about.

 

[happyhindu]

shmt.happyhindu, please be clarified, i have noting against your participation here, i welcome you here very much. again be clarified, i am not a member of any threesome club here.

mine was a social question, about the genuine social contribution of NB's towards TBs. you also answered it by narrating about the temple maintenace by nb, protecting brahmins during wars etc.. As simple as that, you gave the answer to my social question.but, all of a sudden, why are u twisting the topic and driving it towards 'personal issue'? you having already projected it as a personal issue, now you may also answer try to answer this question. What & how an NB member could contribute to this TB.com forum.. in what ways and means? This is a very personal, forum centered question, and not social-community question. you may avoid to answer this.

but take it from me, i always welcome your participation here, and in enjoy your diverse views, and i have noting personal against. remember you have only projected me as a threesome and tagged me in to a club, whoom the members i dont know much about.

Shiva,

Yourself, Pann and Swami tend to post one after the other in tandem each time questioning my participation here. Hence, to me, the 3 of you are a threesome in this matter.

You asked how and why NBs contribute to welfare of TBs and i answered that. May i know what did i twist here and what did i make a "personal issue" here?

Shiva, your language is not new on this forum so am quite aware that no matter what explanation you give, your views in this matter are rather clear.

Here you have people like Vivek, who go around arguing that old commentators did not classify groups into arya clans and anarya (non-arya) clans. And that too he argues (claims) this even without reading Sayana's and Yaska's commentaries. If one questions an author like P Shankaranarayana or whoever (who claim advaita is derived from karmakanda), then the person questioning it is "arrogant". If this is the kind of blinders one wants to wear, then good luck to you guys.

In a forum, if you want diverse views, you wud want diverse people of diverse backgrounds, not the same run off the mill doing british-bashing, dk-bashing or anything-bashing as long one is not required to introspect. I do beleive my posts bring home the point (of introsepection) well enough...just that truth is unfortunately always bitter..

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri B. Krishnamurthy

"I consider Mr.Kailash Nath Katju as a very learned person.Of course I had a feeling as to why the Judge should write so
much about the past and about Ekalavya and Dronacharya while delivering the judgement in the case of a Tribal
Woman.Perhaps the cruelty caused to that woman by the society would have stirred his moral conscience."

See, the problem today is we are not facing things for what they are. To pass a program to uplift tribal people doesn't
require us to say they are "native" and thus, we are doing so and so program. Just because they haven't been able to keep
up with times, it becomes the case.

"From your posting it is not clear whether you had gone through the full judgement."

I only commented on the psyche of trying to attest anything tribal, rural or unurban as "native" - this mindset is common
among people because they tend to project colonial history of say USA, into history of India.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Nara

"Folks, I wish to express my strong support for Happyhindu and condemn with equal vigor these attempts to question her
identity. This must be completely unacceptable, I don't know why more voices are not being heard. Stand up for the right
thing folks and be heard."

What is unacceptable? People asking of Happyhindu's identity out of curiosity is not hating her or abusing her. So I hardly understand why you need to sound like she is being victimized. I would like to be frank, as I would like others to be with me. In any case, nobody pushed Happyhindu against a wall her questioning her. I hardly see what is the issue bothering you to feel "I don't know why more voices are not being heard".

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu - Discarding opinions with reason is different from disregarding

"Please do not try to own hinduism. It belongs to everyone else as much as it belongs to you. And every hindu has the
right to care about the religion as much as you do."

The people who did study and propagate Hinduism though were called brahmins. It was their culture, and that included
people who were regarded brahmins due to their lifestyle, not lineage. Brahmins aren't trying to own Hinduism, it just in
good part happens to be their legacy even before a time when brahmin was considered heriditary.

When it comes to something negative like casteism, it is called "brahminism". When it comes to other facets of the religion,
the say is "Please don't try to own hinduism". Nobody owned Hinduism.

"Swami says Non zoarashtrians are not allowed into their temples. True. Similarly, non muslims are not allowed into
mecca. Zoarashtrianism and islam are religions not castes. IMO no one can deny anyone entry in Hindu temples based on
caste."

Yes, and I find nothing wrong with it. Today in Mumbai I live at travelling distance from Parsee colony, and I lived in Saudi Arabia too before coming to Mumbai. I never saw Mecca, I felt nothing wrong with it. But I agree with you on the issue of Hindu temples. In any case, again, this is not something that is blocking your or anyone's life.

As I mentioned earlier there are Hindu folds which are open to accepting everyone - like the Arya Samaj or ISKCON.

Further, to claim that you have a better interpretation without reading P. Sankaranaryana and saying that he and others
merely accepeted Advaita as having derived from the karmakanda, without understand, is indeed questionable - given that they dedicated many years in its study, in the way, it was studied all along. This was your comment in post # 79:

"Practically everyone who follows advaita makes the self-serving claim that "it is from the vedas". There are reams and reams written on it such that an untruth begins to be considered a truth. It is quite apparent that Advaita, is from "later-day vedanta"."

Does it give adequate weight to those who studied the vedas in the method it was thought to have been studied for centuries? Why would the method of M.A.s which all of a sudden come up with ideas of skin colour, nose shape hitherto never spoken of NOT be questionable?

And when I spoke of Sayana, I was more than clear that it was not necessary to know his view because it was the SAME as all others clearly understood by the usage of the words in any literature you can find - even till Buddhist and Jain literature. Since you claimed the contary, it was then your position in the debate (not mine) to show me it was different.

Nara and yourself seem to pat each other's backs here, but it doesn't change what I or yourself are saying. He seems to say people are making you a victim here, when all that is happening is a ordinary discussion.

"In a forum, if you want diverse views, you wud want diverse people of diverse backgrounds, not the same run off the mill doing british-bashing, dk-bashing or anything-bashing as long one is not required to introspect. I do beleive my posts bring home the point (of introsepection) well enough...just that truth is unfortunately always bitter.."

Indeed it is bitter, but for you. Your prospect of entering into this stream of thought of ignoring a view without understanding it is the truth of your ignorance. This is not the type of disregard I gave - what I did state (which is true) is that starting from a political theory in Europe, spawned a series of fallacious ideas which never existed in India before. So, the reason for me disregarding the authors you pointed to was explained by me. The reason you gave to reject P. Sankaranarayan, or Parthasarthy was merely your staunch belief that you somehow know more than them! Tell me which of the two is valid?

Even when I correctly pointed that vedanta itself is understood (throughout history) as "conclusion of the vedas", you go so far as to twist the etymological meaning of the word vedanta saying it was because it was of "late vedic period".

Have you any idea of how and why vedanta is interpretted as coming from the vedas? You don't! Neither do I. Atleast I have pursuit to find out why it was considered thus, but you insist on ignoring it without understanding it. Then of course you have Nara to pat you on your back.

Discarding opinions, which I do too, is fine if you clearly understand the method. That is what I had done in case of modern authors inspecting into the political scene when the British came up with the interpretation. So for me to state that ideas like Nordic theory were propaganda is not "British-bashing" its honest study. If you read those ideas, you will understand what I am saying. Likewise, saying the DK is anti-brahmin makes perfect sense from their institutional exiling of brahmins to the comments they made. Further, DK itself openly said it was anti-brahmin.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[ShivKC]

Folks, I wish to express my strong support for Happyhindu and condemn with equal vigor these attempts to question her identity. This must be completely unacceptable, I don't know why more voices are not being heard. Stand up for the right thing folks and be heard.

Cheers!

sh.nara, you seem to reinstate and question every one, to answer to the points raised by you, than going personal, but when it comes to the question of responding to a question of 'personal identity', you go void and claim it an unacceptable. Let me know whats wrong in asking a persons identity (though the person has already identified openly, and I have no issues about that). Why such double standards?

 

[ShivKC]

Shiva,

Yourself, Pann and Swami tend to post one after the other in tandem each time questioning my participation here. Hence, to me, the 3 of you are a threesome in this matter.

Forum is all for question and debate. so where is the issue of me questioning. btw, I never questioned your participation as an individual. I only wanted to know, how much an NB could contribute here with a good heart? that was my only apprehension..


You asked how and why NBs contribute to welfare of TBs and i answered that. May i know what did i twist here and what did i make a "personal issue" here?

You answered it right.. perfect. no issues. but you twisted that genuine question of my to a polarized angle, claiming, that I am questioning your authority of participation here, and against you, and you also added me to the 'Threesome club'.. thats painful one ..




Shiva, your language is not new on this forum so am quite aware that no matter what explanation you give, your views in this matter are rather clear.

I was just 3 months old here, since October, I dont know how much the forum got familiar with me.... I rarely write here, and only in the last 15 days time, I found time.. Thats why i say, i am not even familiar with the threesome you were talking about about, though they might be very old members.

Here you have people like Vivek, who go around arguing that old commentators did not classify groups into arya clans and anarya (non-arya) clans. And that too he argues (claims) this even without reading Sayana's and Yaska's commentaries. If one questions an author like P Shankaranarayana or whoever (who claim advaita is derived from karmakanda), then the person questioning it is "arrogant". If this is the kind of blinders one wants to wear, then good luck to you guys.


I have never ventured deep in to these religious talks. I have no idea about arya clans/sayana/yasaka.



In a forum, if you want diverse views, you wud want diverse people of diverse backgrounds, not the same run off the mill doing british-bashing, dk-bashing or anything-bashing as long one is not required to introspect.


Diverse views are good. i appreciate that. but maintain the limits set by the norms in the guest-house


I do beleive my posts bring home the point (of introsepection) well enough...just that truth is unfortunately always bitter..

I doubt!!

 

[Nara]

sh.nara, you seem to reinstate and question every one, to answer to the points raised by you, than going personal, but when it comes to the question of responding to a question of 'personal identity', you go void and claim it an unacceptable. Let me know whats wrong in asking a persons identity (though the person has already identified openly, and I have no issues about that). Why such double standards?

ShivKC, I fail to see any contradiction. Would anyone here view her opinions differently if they come to know of her true personal identity? I hope the answer is no and that is the point.

The forum rules do not require anyone to provide details of one's identify for all the members to see. Each member gets to decide how much of their true identity they want to reveal, and how truthful they want to be in what they reveal. So, what purpose is served by demanding to know a member's true personal identity? Aren't the views they express sufficient?

Yes ShivKC, I do insist that people must stick to the point and not take arguments to the personal level. I am trying to apply the same standard here as well, all I am saying is engage in discussions with Happyhindu as much as you like, but there is no legitimate purpose for questioning her personal identity.

Hope this explains ....

 

[Nara]

...... I hardly see what is the issue bothering you to feel "I don't know why more voices are not being heard".

Vivek, I understand that you don't see why I bother, but the fact is I do bother. Some of the posts made in here were in bad taste. Praveen had to intervene and close the thread. This is what is unacceptable to me.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

.....Diverse views are good. i appreciate that. but maintain the limits set by the norms in the guest-house

ShivKC, would you please explain this statement, I don't quite understand what you have in your mind? I am particularly interested in what you mean by the highlighted phrase.

Thanks ....

 

[happyhindu]

Yourself, Pann and Swami tend to post one after the other in tandem each time questioning my participation here. Hence, to me, the 3 of you are a threesome in this matter.

Forum is all for question and debate. so where is the issue of me questioning. btw, I never questioned your participation as an individual. I only wanted to know, how much an NB could contribute here with a good heart? that was my only apprehension..


You asked how and why NBs contribute to welfare of TBs and i answered that. May i know what did i twist here and what did i make a "personal issue" here?

You answered it right.. perfect. no issues. but you twisted that genuine question of my to a polarized angle, claiming, that I am questioning your authority of participation here, and against you, and you also added me to the 'Threesome club'.. thats painful one ..




Shiva, your language is not new on this forum so am quite aware that no matter what explanation you give, your views in this matter are rather clear.

I was just 3 months old here, since October, I dont know how much the forum got familiar with me.... I rarely write here, and only in the last 15 days time, I found time.. Thats why i say, i am not even familiar with the threesome you were talking about about, though they might be very old members.

Here you have people like Vivek, who go around arguing that old commentators did not classify groups into arya clans and anarya (non-arya) clans. And that too he argues (claims) this even without reading Sayana's and Yaska's commentaries. If one questions an author like P Shankaranarayana or whoever (who claim advaita is derived from karmakanda), then the person questioning it is "arrogant". If this is the kind of blinders one wants to wear, then good luck to you guys.


I have never ventured deep in to these religious talks. I have no idea about arya clans/sayana/yasaka.



In a forum, if you want diverse views, you wud want diverse people of diverse backgrounds, not the same run off the mill doing british-bashing, dk-bashing or anything-bashing as long one is not required to introspect.


Diverse views are good. i appreciate that. but maintain the limits set by the norms in the guest-house


I do beleive my posts bring home the point (of introsepection) well enough...just that truth is unfortunately always bitter..

I doubt!!

Shiva,

I do not understand what this is all about.

Kindly explain what do you mean by a "guest-house"? I had already asked the moderators to delete whatever posts of mine are not OK for public consumption. As far i know i have not flouted any rules. Nor have the moderators told me that i have flouted any rules.

If you do not wish to read my posts, you do have a choice -- just do not read my posts.

If you are a new member of just 3 months old and if you hardly write here, may i know on what authority you are asking me for my personal identity? Has Praveen authorized you to ask for my identity?

 

[Raghy]

Respectable members, Greetings.

எப்பொருள் யார்யார் வாய்கேட்பினும் அப்பொருள்
மெய்ப்பொருள் காண்ப தறிவு.

Sow.Happy Hindu's identity as a messaenger is irrelevant. She is an esteemed member like any other member, who is here to voice her opinions and write her messages.

by the way, I have not provided my personal identity, even to the moderators and the forum owner.

If participation of NBs are to be questioned by the way of contributuion towards Brahmin community, my participation should be questioned too, since I don't even know my caste. (But I grew up in an Iyengar home; does it make me a brahmin?). I am more than happy to field questions about my participation in this forum.

In my opinion, Sow.Happy Hindu is one of the pillars of this forum. She did not join this forum as a guest-member.

I humbly request all the members to focus on Sow.Happy Hindu's messages, please. This forum is for discussing messages and analysing point-of-views. This forum is not for analysing messengers.

I really feel it is indecent to ask for the identity of other members. I will not even do it in PM, leave alone in the public forum.

In my opinion, Sow.Happy Hindu has no obligation even to answer such messages pointed towards her identity.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

Further, to claim that you have a better interpretation without reading P. Sankaranaryana and saying that he and others
merely accepeted Advaita as having derived from the karmakanda, without understand, is indeed questionable - given that they dedicated many years in its study, in the way, it was studied all along. This was your comment in post # 79:

"Practically everyone who follows advaita makes the self-serving claim that "it is from the vedas". There are reams and reams written on it such that an untruth begins to be considered a truth. It is quite apparent that Advaita, is from "later-day vedanta"."

Even when I correctly pointed that vedanta itself is understood (throughout history) as "conclusion of the vedas", you go so far as to twist the etymological meaning of the word vedanta saying it was because it was of "late vedic period".

Have you any idea of how and why vedanta is interpretted as coming from the vedas? You don't! Neither do I. Atleast I have pursuit to find out why it was considered thus, but you insist on ignoring it without understanding it. Then of course you have Nara to pat you on your back.

P Shankaranarayanan may have taught philosophy all his life as a professor. His understanding of the incepts and conceptualization of advaita ontologies were obviously perfect. However, in his personal life he was a great devotee of Kanchi Paramacharya. From my old posts, it is quite apparent that i am questioning the claims made by the Acharya as well.

I challenge you to prove to me that Brahmasutra
1) existed at the time when the Rig Samhita was composed.
2) existed at the time when Vedavyasa compiled the Vedas in the Mahabharat period.

Adi Shankara rejected Karmakanda as valid means of Moksham. He established 4 mutts to propagate Advaitha alone. Anyone who becomes a Sanyasi of the 4 mutts, including the Shankaracharya, has to remove his poonul upon accepting Sanyasam. I challenge you to prove to me that Adi Shankara accepted Advaita to be derived from the Karmakanda.

And when I spoke of Sayana, I was more than clear that it was not necessary to know his view because it was the SAME as all others clearly understood by the usage of the words in any literature you can find - even till Buddhist and Jain literature. Since you claimed the contary, it was then your position in the debate (not mine) to show me it was different.

Even Panini had mentioned kula as a village (Panini 6.2.129). But Yaska pronounced kula as a clan (Nirukta 9.26) and went on to designate characters as "arya" and "non-arya". Sayana merely accepted most part of Yaska's offerings and also offered geographical location of groups (example: according to Sayana the anarya (non-arya) kikatas inhabit the country of andrya). Btw, Yaska's Nirukta has also been investigated for incorrect renditions. In volume 2 of a publication titled "Social Scientist" a list of phrases have been given on how Yaska incorrectly dereived meanings. So viewpoints in that direction also exists.

Anyways, if anyone has to be blamed for race theories, then it is the brahmins of the colonial period who allowed the terms, vamsa, kula, gotra, etc to be translated as "race". If you want to do Griffith-bashing, you should also be willing to look at the role of Griffith's co-author Jagdish Shastri.

Indeed it is bitter, but for you. Your prospect of entering into this stream of thought of ignoring a view without understanding it is the truth of your ignorance. This is not the type of disregard I gave - what I did state (which is true) is that starting from a political theory in Europe, spawned a series of fallacious ideas which never existed in India before. So, the reason for me disregarding the authors you pointed to was explained by me. The reason you gave to reject P. Sankaranarayan, or Parthasarthy was merely your staunch belief that you somehow know more than them! Tell me which of the two is valid?

Already replied above that I challenge you to prove to me that Adi Shankara had accepted advaita to be derived from Karmakanda. If P Shankarayanarayan were here today i wud have invited him to a written debate (yes i wud have, if you think that is arrogance, then so be it). Infact am wondering why Jains and Buddhists are not inviting the Advaitins to debate.

Discarding opinions, which I do too, is fine if you clearly understand the method. That is what I had done in case of modern authors inspecting into the political scene when the British came up with the interpretation. So for me to state that ideas like Nordic theory were propaganda is not "British-bashing" its honest study. If you read those ideas, you will understand what I am saying. Likewise, saying the DK is anti-brahmin makes perfect sense from their institutional exiling of brahmins to the comments they made. Further, DK itself openly said it was anti-brahmin.

Regards,
Vivek.

I do not understand what you mean by 'discarding opinions' and that too without 'understanding the method'.

My views on the DK are already well known from old posts. It is easy for anyone wo make a career out of the caste system. However, this discussion is not about DK. It is about your view that arya and dasyu were not warring clans.

 

[ShivKC]

ShivKC, would you please explain this statement, I don't quite understand what you have in your mind? I am particularly interested in what you mean by the highlighted phrase.

Thanks ....

sh.nara, pls take it as a sarcasm, i'm, sure you would have grasped it already. after all you only took a strong stand with sh,krs to permit sarcasm, as a legitimate mode of conveying message.

 

[ShivKC]

Shiva,

I do not understand what this is all about. Kindly explain what do you mean by a "guest-house"?

smt.happyhindu, this is essentially a tamilbrahmin forum, set for the development of the community,though every one is allowed to participate. any man with indian passport goes to america, can only be a guest for that country,not be an american,though every one with a visa is permitted inside. more importantly, the visitor is expected to follow the law of the visiting land and as well the etiquettes/customs of the place. while in rome, be a roman.

I had already asked the moderators to delete whatever posts of mine are not OK for public consumption.

you've come closer. Who are the public here? definitely the tamilbrahmins, right. if this a forum for amercian public, i'm sure all your posts would be a welcoming one. unfortunately, this is essentially a TB forum. hope that clarifies.

re, deleting of posts,this is like, I have done the robbery, and when caught by cops, surrender the loot, and claim clean. damage once done, is difficult to compensate.



,

may i know on what authority you are asking me for my personal identity? Has Praveen authorized you to ask for my identity?

Could you please provide me the post in which I asked for the personal identity??..Will respond , after getting the reply from you. Note: I absolutely have no issues /quest about the identity of the participants. so please dont drag me in to your notion of Threesome club