A Few Glimpses from South Indian History

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Regarding Brahmakshatriyas, I want to be clear about one thing from happyhindu.
What does mahabharata say about the origins of kshetropeta brahmins and the purpose and meaning of their lives.
This is relevant for any further discussion on the same.
I know a north indian group who claim to be brahma kshatriyas but other brahmins will not marry them, and this group does not accept dan for their priestly services. But any further discussion can come about only when this is clarified. Note : Kshatriyas were never barred from vedic learning so if they were really what their legend indicates then they were true kshatriyas as opposed to the usurpation of the kshatriya titles by the warrior clans in the country.


Thanks,
PV

I think you missed the point on kshatropeta brahmanas.

Shri Saidevo has claimed that there was always a difference between the laukika and vaidika brahmins. WRT i had mentioned the kshatropeta brahmins and asked if there is any way of finding out the difference between a laukika and vaidika brahmin. That is, to know if anyone can ascertain if one's ancestry came from the vaidikas brahmins or from the 'laukika' warrior clans that claimed to be brahmins.

As regards the claims that the 'laukika' warrior clans were already "kshatriya", there is enuf debate on it. Those interested may look up details from various publications of the Indian History Congress for tribal warriors groups that became hinduized and claimed to belong to hindu varnas (and also on the difference between the vedic rajanya and later term 'kshatriya').

I am done with the discussions on the difference between the laukika and vaidika brahmins. If there are inputs on the atharva-veda i would like to hear them out [With sources / references / logical inferences please -- and not just mere claims].

Thanks.

 

[happyhindu]

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.

 

[sangom]

Smt. HH,

I do not know who are all telling you in private that you are running away from discussions. Whoever that may be, I feel there is no point of expecting the kind of reply/information you would like to have, from a person like Shri P.V. Iyer who has made his view points amply clear; he is of the so-called orthodox type though it is not what an orthodox Brahman might have been two generations ago; for him the Kanchi acharya is as good as a "living god" (I always found this to be ironical; the original god becomes dead, isn't it?!) and much of what he says comes from strictly following traditions and the "intuition" arising therefrom, not by reading books. Hence, only if you are willing to accept his intuitional pov, can there be any meeting ground between the two of you. Otherwise, the best course is for you to be silent, which is golden.

Shri Vikrama's post brings out clearly the futility of all the time and energies wasted here.

I apologize for my indiscretion in tendering such unsolicited advice to you.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sangom.

...for him the Kanchi acharya is as good as a "living god" (I always found this to be ironical; the original god becomes dead, isn't it?!)

I find your innuendo against KAnchi ParamAchArya to be in bad taste. The courtesy you extend to a fellow member about unsolicited advice should also be extended to a jagadguru reverred by millions of Hindus the world over, even if you hate him. You should be silent if you don't like people revering him as god.

Because you said in post no.478, for him the Kanchi acharya is as good as a "living god", thus making a personal reference to shrI PV Iyer with a hint of disapproval at the sage he revers, I am forced to make the following observation:

If calling him a living god makes the original God dead, specially when Hinduism teaches about many gods and about everyone being a potential god,

with that same logic you should also find the Hindu in a person dead, when the person has no faith in the divinity and inerrancy of the Vedas or sees only what the person wants to see in practically every scriptural, religious, ritual and traditional aspect of the Hindu Dharma and constantly finds fault with any other view.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Saidevo Ji.

I also thought about this, but I don't think Sri Sangom Ji meant any harm. In my opinion, he was making a general comment on his belief that he does not consider any man as God. He so then does not endorse the avatars and does not consider Krishna and Rama as Lords.

He is entitled to his opinions.

I myself do not consider Maha Periaval as an 'avatar' of Shiva, FYI. This is because, I do not think that avatars are a part of Shiva. I follow the Bhagawan Ramana Maharishi, who I think is a God send here for a person like me, but I would never confuse him as an Avatar, which is a particular dogma that fits if one follows either Visishtadwaitha or Dwaitha. Within Advaitha, we do not have avatars.

Regards,
KRS

 

[suraju06]

HH,

BTW, there is no necessity for scientists to accept the "acharyas on their spiritual vision and experience" (whatever that means)

Now you are opening another front. The spiritual vision and spiritual experience are as much human experiences as other worldly experiences. Science does not discriminate between one experience and another. Scientists try to understand empirically each such interesting subject by subjecting it to their rigorous analytical methods. So you are on slippery grounds when you declare this way on behalf of all scientists. As a scientist I do not agree with your this assertion.

On the contrary, acharyas
have to make their claims acceptable to science.
If the claims are not bogus, then allow it be be scrutinized.

Now I ask you this question: Which science are you talking about. The science which authoritatively spoke about the Newtonian mechanics or the science that talked about the Quantum mechanics tentatively and is still in search of the elusive grand unifying theory? To which science should acharyas speak about their spiritual experiences? Who is going to decide what is bogus and what is not?

Though these assertions of you have come in the context of discussing about laukika and vaidika Brahmins, they sounded shrill and hence I thought I will ask you this. If you did not intend your assertions to be completely at a basic level as I have presumed here we can skip this.

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.

This kind of claims are being presented in this forum here often with a flourish. When archeological evidences are not available, and when linguistic evidences are presented these are dismissed outright on the specious claim that these were all censored material by kings and his Brahmin ministers of that time.( as if these censoring proceedings were personally witnessed). So as a member here (Sri Vikrama) says it is an unending argument which goes on here in the name of intellectual discussion and ultimately the name of the game is POV. Some intellectuals this!! Cheers.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI KRS ji.

I am an admirer of RamaNa MaharShi myself and have read books about him by shrI RA.GaNapati. He is an advaitin who believed in ajAti vAda, yet, please remember, his devotees addressed and referred to him as BhagavAn (which he never objected), he made his mother be worshipped as god by consecrating her samAdhi and he accepted and wore vibhUti-kunguma prasAdams from temples offered to him by his devotees. He had even shed tears at some devotees' afflictions. The point is, although a jIvan mukta, BhagavAn RamaNa admitted and taught levels of spiritual development towards Advaita, which is why he did not reject the karma and bhakti mArgas of his devotees.

So, if I say that RamaNa is BhagavAn--God, who is still living to me, would you say that it cannot be because it would mean that the original God is dead? Or would you just stop at, "Nice. To me however he is not a god", thus restraining yourself from finding fault at my belief or making fun at it?

Please think about this angle too, when you seek to defend a member so quickly even before he answers, specially when that member IMO is only persisting at making fun of other views while seeking to establish his own rational views as the ultimate truth. You chided him gently when he tried to make fun of SivAnanda and he managed to wriggle out of it with some unknown/less known references, and yet he is back at it, specially with a sage like KAnchi ParamAchArya.

Regards,
saidevo

Dear Sri Saidevo Ji.

I also thought about this, but I don't think Sri Sangom Ji meant any harm. In my opinion, he was making a general comment on his belief that he does not consider any man as God. He so then does not endorse the avatars and does not consider Krishna and Rama as Lords.

He is entitled to his opinions.

I myself do not consider Maha Periaval as an 'avatar' of Shiva, FYI. This is because, I do not think that avatars are a part of Shiva. I follow the Bhagawan Ramana Maharishi, who I think is a God send here for a person like me, but I would never confuse him as an Avatar, which is a particular dogma that fits if one follows either Visishtadwaitha or Dwaitha. Within Advaitha, we do not have avatars.

Regards,
KRS

 

[pviyer]

Smt. HH,

I do not know who are all telling you in private that you are running away from discussions. Whoever that may be, I feel there is no point of expecting the kind of reply/information you would like to have, from a person like Shri P.V. Iyer who has made his view points amply clear; he is of the so-called orthodox type though it is not what an orthodox Brahman might have been two generations ago; for him the Kanchi acharya is as good as a "living god" (I always found this to be ironical; the original god becomes dead, isn't it?!) and much of what he says comes from strictly following traditions and the "intuition" arising therefrom, not by reading books. Hence, only if you are willing to accept his intuitional pov, can there be any meeting ground between the two of you. Otherwise, the best course is for you to be silent, which is golden.

Shri Vikrama's post brings out clearly the futility of all the time and energies wasted here.

I apologize for my indiscretion in tendering such unsolicited advice to you.

Instead of replying the statements made by HH I am replying to you. I request HH not to make big statements. My first request to people is that if they use a citation, they may have a big weight behind their shoulders. This may be good for bullying but what is needed for changing the opinion of people with whom you discuss, is to mention the source of a particular information in citation.
i dont ever draw portraits of people even those whom I meet and have had lengthy discussion with.I only believe in addressing the lacunae in an individual's thoughts with respect to the specific points alone. Therefore any such portrayal of me, I think this is what really distracts a discussion. I never had a negative aura about HH until she made personal remarks about me. I enjoy arguments to the last degree of breath, but dont tolerate it when people make personal remarks and characterizations.Frankly I have survived purely by my tolerance even to the extent that I have never fought or abused or insulted a person, even when they have openly insulted me. I cant prove this, as what ever I am saying to her could also be considered an insult by the parties in question.So the fact that I am having to make all these statements is the real distraction and digression for me. I am not new to the citation world because I have done a masters thesis at an international university and so all this big gyan on citations,POV etc dont impress me. I know what is good that happens in research and what is the bad that is published in names of research, the kind of books some of which HH probably reads.The authors have to show research output volumes every year, and they need to put in as much of effort as they can in proving a point and in sociology it is to bend and reinterpret all the sources of information you have. If you are wendy do'nigger you will apply freudian theories, genetics and may be even space science.I found the academic world largely egoistic, and I never wanted to pursue a phd. This is my view and I dont think I need to be insulted for such a statement also. It is HH prerogative that she wants only citation based discussion .I dont need the support of such citations, because most of what I say is based on well known things. For example if HH really wanted to know about the tradition of niyogis, I can specifically ask my niyogi friends to find her a person in their community who knows their tradition. My knowledge of Niyogis largely come from what the majority hold to be with regard to their origin.Instead of making big statements that it is proven what Niyogis are, a worthwhile exercise is to let me know what is said in the books she reads about Niyogis and more specifically what is the source of this information. The latter is no less valid than the former. This is a bigger proof than all these length quotes from motivated scholars. I dont need to quote books because what I say is largely common sense and well known facts.For critical reading of quoted books, I dont need citations either. I dont need quoting books for what information I expect everyone here to know. I have been reading on these subjects for quite a long time. And its not possible that just for proving a point , I bring one citation then another. It is frankly childish. Further in this discussion, I merely said that the books she gives citation to, dont really figure as major evidences, but merely inferences. To make my point , I refer to a sample that assumptions are being made by the author she quotes, then I ask her to present a specific example in the text she quotes in support of her statement and I can critically read it from my perspective.
1. HH needs to provide convincing evidence that atharva veda was not considered a valid veda in vedic times. To my knowledge this theory has originated only in British times ,based on re-reading scriptures. I am not aware of any such from real traditions.Sorry. She may ask for a citation from , this and this author for even such a statement. It does not need a citation, as it is an observation of the tradition,and knowledge of reading books that dont indicate otherwise, and if she has something concrete to prove against well established notions held by our traditionalists and arya samajis, she can come forward and say- in 15 th century this noted tradition did not approve atharva veda. Note I am even allowing such possibilities, we all like to be educated. The next time I meet an expert in that area, I can put this doubt directly to him if I cant understand.There is no tradition but there are modern interpretations. Modern interpretations may or may not be valid but the claim of HH and the authors she reads, have not been agreed upon universally.So her claim that it is proven that atharva veda is not an original veda is not only misleading but it is insulting to all our legendary vedic scholars. We have three parties in the debate on vedas- the modern authors, arya samaj, and the vedic paramapara. The last two certainly dont see any traditions or truth in such statements on atharva veda. HH may go ahead , research build castles of theories on atharva veda. Go ahead , what can I say. "Enakendapa intha vambu"
2. Lengthy unrelated- either HH and myself live in two different worlds where questions that comes across are largely not understood by me or her. I made discussion on chitpawan, niyogis etc specifically on her points on brahminisation. I made points on caste specifically on her question on what is brahminisation.The concept is clear and convincing, I have been able to put forward a view that shows that both interpretors of bhagwat gita on varna are not wrong.On Caste, My note is clear, either bhagwat gita is wrong or the chatur varna followed as in scriptures makes sense. Parmacharya's views are known to most and his view I was able to digest only after long years of thinking. I did not accept his statements immediately when I read it. That is my conditon and I really dont know how others react to him.

HH can do less with characterizations and simplistic understanding of people and their motivations.

 

[suraju06]

Sri Sangom,

P.V.Iyer is of the so-called orthodox type though it is not what an orthodox Brahman might have been two generations ago; for him the Kanchi acharya is as good as a "living god" (I always found this to be ironical; the original god becomes dead, isn't it?!) and much of what he says comes from strictly following traditions and the "intuition" arising therefrom, not by reading books.

Your taunt is not missed. நடமாடும் தெய்வம் is the term by which the Kanchi Acharya is known among his followers. But then your jumping to the conclusion that the original God dies the moment the நடமாடும் தெய்வம் walks the streets of this world is a frivolous statement to say the least. The Acharya was accepted as a நடமாடும் தெய்வம் by many people and I think we should be careful not to hurt the sentiments of such people when we write any thing about this belief.

 

[happyhindu]

HH,

Now you are opening another front. The spiritual vision and spiritual experience are as much human experiences as other worldly experiences. Science does not discriminate between one experience and another. Scientists try to understand empirically each such interesting subject by subjecting it to their rigorous analytical methods. So you are on slippery grounds when you declare this way on behalf of all scientists. As a scientist I do not agree with your this assertion.

Now I ask you this question: Which science are you talking about. The science which authoritatively spoke about the Newtonian mechanics or the science that talked about the Quantum mechanics tentatively and is still in search of the elusive grand unifying theory? To which science should acharyas speak about their spiritual experiences? Who is going to decide what is bogus and what is not?

Though these assertions of you have come in the context of discussing about laukika and vaidika Brahmins, they sounded shrill and hence I thought I will ask you this. If you did not intend your assertions to be completely at a basic level as I have presumed here we can skip this.

Dear Shri Raju,

Had no idea you were a scientist. Serious.

Am sure you must be aware that there is enough research in the science of consciousness and brain imaging pertaining to that. These are hot topics in neuroscience, esp wrt behavior, emotional health and mental ability. Often the subjects of study are buddhist monks. There are way too many research papers on that. A simple search on pubmed would give you several links.

There are also links on open source. Am providing 2 sources:
1) Why meditation works: Neuroimaging study supports ancient buddhist teachings | Wildmind Buddhist Meditation
2) Tibetan Buddhism and research psychology: a match made in Nirvana?

Why our hindu monks do not offer themselves to be scrutinized by science? Especially those who claim to have experienced kundalini raising or those who can accomplist great feats?

Not only buddhist monks, i heard that even tibetan tantra ritualism was researched for its positive effects on the brain by one group.

You may be aware that only Swami Nityananda (now tainted) allowed his brain to be studied by one William Collins. I do not know how far that is true. There was no publication in a journal.

But i may beleive that Swami Nityananda might have had brain activity which was different from the normal ones (just that he perhaps misused his energies - some examples of those who misused siddhis for petty gains were mentioned by Yogananda Pramahansa in his book Autobiography of a Yogi, wonder if Nityananda will reform himself).

Anyways, i feel all these are totally unrelated to the topic at hand. If there are inputs from you on the atharva-veda, they are welcome. Otherwise i shall consider all side-tracked topics closed.

This kind of claims are being presented in this forum here often with a flourish. When archeological evidences are not available, and when linguistic evidences are presented these are dismissed outright on the specious claim that these were all censored material by kings and his Brahmin ministers of that time.( as if these censoring proceedings were personally witnessed). So as a member here (Sri Vikrama) says it is an unending argument which goes on here in the name of intellectual discussion and ultimately the name of the game is POV. Some intellectuals this!! Cheers.

I do not know which linguistic evidences have been dismissed. If you can mention specific instances that wud be good.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Instead of replying the statements made by HH I am replying to you. I request HH not to make big statements. My first request to people is that if they use a citation, they may have a big weight behind their shoulders. This may be good for bullying but what is needed for changing the opinion of people with whom you discuss, is to mention the source of a particular information in citation.
i dont ever draw portraits of people even those whom I meet and have had lengthy discussion with.I only believe in addressing the lacunae in an individual's thoughts with respect to the specific points alone. Therefore any such portrayal of me, I think this is what really distracts a discussion. I never had a negative aura about HH until she made personal remarks about me. I enjoy arguments to the last degree of breath, but dont tolerate it when people make personal remarks and characterizations.Frankly I have survived purely by my tolerance even to the extent that I have never fought or abused or insulted a person, even when they have openly insulted me. I cant prove this, as what ever I am saying to her could also be considered an insult by the parties in question.So the fact that I am having to make all these statements is the real distraction and digression for me. I am not new to the citation world because I have done a masters thesis at an international university and so all this big gyan on citations,POV etc dont impress me. I know what is good that happens in research and what is the bad that is published in names of research, the kind of books some of which HH probably reads.The authors have to show research output volumes every year, and they need to put in as much of effort as they can in proving a point and in sociology it is to bend and reinterpret all the sources of information you have. If you are wendy do'nigger you will apply freudian theories, genetics and may be even space science.I found the academic world largely egoistic, and I never wanted to pursue a phd. This is my view and I dont think I need to be insulted for such a statement also. It is HH prerogative that she wants only citation based discussion .I dont need the support of such citations, because most of what I say is based on well known things. For example if HH really wanted to know about the tradition of niyogis, I can specifically ask my niyogi friends to find her a person in their community who knows their tradition. My knowledge of Niyogis largely come from what the majority hold to be with regard to their origin.Instead of making big statements that it is proven what Niyogis are, a worthwhile exercise is to let me know what is said in the books she reads about Niyogis and more specifically what is the source of this information. The latter is no less valid than the former. This is a bigger proof than all these length quotes from motivated scholars. I dont need to quote books because what I say is largely common sense and well known facts.For critical reading of quoted books, I dont need citations either. I dont need quoting books for what information I expect everyone here to know. I have been reading on these subjects for quite a long time. And its not possible that just for proving a point , I bring one citation then another. It is frankly childish. Further in this discussion, I merely said that the books she gives citation to, dont really figure as major evidences, but merely inferences. To make my point , I refer to a sample that assumptions are being made by the author she quotes, then I ask her to present a specific example in the text she quotes in support of her statement and I can critically read it from my perspective.
1. HH needs to provide convincing evidence that atharva veda was not considered a valid veda in vedic times. To my knowledge this theory has originated only in British times ,based on re-reading scriptures. I am not aware of any such from real traditions.Sorry. She may ask for a citation from , this and this author for even such a statement. It does not need a citation, as it is an observation of the tradition,and knowledge of reading books that dont indicate otherwise, and if she has something concrete to prove against well established notions held by our traditionalists and arya samajis, she can come forward and say- in 15 th century this noted tradition did not approve atharva veda. Note I am even allowing such possibilities, we all like to be educated. The next time I meet an expert in that area, I can put this doubt directly to him if I cant understand.There is no tradition but there are modern interpretations. Modern interpretations may or may not be valid but the claim of HH and the authors she reads, have not been agreed upon universally. So her claim that it is proven that atharva veda is not an original veda is not only misleading but it is insulting to all our legendary vedic scholars. We have three parties in the debate on vedas- the modern authors, arya samaj, and the vedic paramapara. The last two certainly dont see any traditions or truth in such statements on atharva veda. HH may go ahead , research build castles of theories on atharva veda. Go ahead , what can I say. "Enakendapa intha vambu"
2. Lengthy unrelated- either HH and myself live in two different worlds where questions that comes across are largely not understood by me or her. I made discussion on chitpawan, niyogis etc specifically on her points on brahminisation. I made points on caste specifically on her question on what is brahminisation.The concept is clear and convincing, I have been able to put forward a view that shows that both interpretors of bhagwat gita on varna are not wrong.On Caste, My note is clear, either bhagwat gita is wrong or the chatur varna followed as in scriptures makes sense. Parmacharya's views are known to most and his view I was able to digest only after long years of thinking. I did not accept his statements immediately when I read it. That is my conditon and I really dont know how others react to him.

HH can do less with characterizations and simplistic understanding of people and their motivations.

Shri KRS Ji,

I find this to be veering towards baseless accusations. You have been witness to my posts on this thread. Please tell me:

1) Where have i made personal remarks about PV Iyer? Also, I do not understand what "aura" he is talking about.

2) Where have i indulged in characterizations?

3) Where have i said that discussion must be ONLY citation based? I have already said this:
The point in discussion must be verifiable, that's all. It can come as a logical hypothesis inferred from existing data with no archeological evidence to support it. It will be acceptable as long as the premises of the argument is sound and supported with inferred evidence from linguistic or any other form of research. Not mere claims please.

As long as a person provides a relevant verse from the vedas or any other literature that is fine enough. He does not have to provide book citations.

3) I had hoped that here we cud discuss into the tradition of the trayi-veda and understand reasons why atharva was not accepted as a veda by the trayi-veda group. This is not something that pertains to the colonial times. It is not me who is claiming that atharva-veda was not originally accepted as a veda.

How can PV claim that "So her claim that it is proven that atharva veda is not an original veda is not only misleading but it is insulting to all our legendary vedic scholars" ?

Regards.

 

[sangom]

Instead of replying the statements made by HH I am replying to you.

Shri P.V.Iyer,

I do not know whether a reply is apt for the above post, because it is not clear to me whether you expect me to take up the discussion on behalf of Smt. HH. My simple intention in writing was to request HH - whom I have known here for some time through her posts and so, the kind of data/information she obviously needs - that there may be no point in expecting the desired kind of response (or rebuttal) from you, as understood by me from a few posts made by you lately. I was also led to write because, Vikrama in his well-considered assessment (though I disagree with him on some minor point/s) has said that long posts are not very useful to the general readers.

In case your post under reply is to reproach me, this is my explanation, pl. But if it is actually intended for HH and merely cites my post, then it is for her (HH) to take further action. Hope my position is clear.

 

[suraju06]

HH,

Had no idea you were a scientist. Serious.

Now that you know, please try to get serious.

Am sure you must be aware that there is enough research in the science of consciousness and brain imaging pertaining to that. These are hot topics in neuroscience, esp wrt behavior, emotional health and mental ability. Often the subjects of study are buddhist monks. There are way too many research papers on that. A simple search on pubmed would give you several links.
There are also links on open source. Am providing 2 sources:
1) Why meditation works: Neuroimaging study supports ancient buddhist teachings | Wildmind Buddhist Meditation
2) Tibetan Buddhism and research psychology: a match made in Nirvana?
Why our hindu monks do not offer themselves to be scrutinized by science? Especially those who claim to have experienced kundalini raising or those who can accomplist great feats?
Not only buddhist monks, i heard that even tibetan tantra ritualism was researched for its positive effects on the brain by one group.
You may be aware that only Swami Nityananda (now tainted) allowed his brain to be studied by one William Collins. I do not know how far that is true. There was no publication in a journal.

It is sad that you have wasted so many bits and bites in posting matters which have no relevance to the basic questions I raised. May be you are believe that you can fill up the space with quantity.Now you have brought in Nityananda into the picture alongside Yogananda Paramahans. I asked you whether the science knows what it wants or what it is talking about when it asserts that the intuitive knowledge should prove itself by subjecting itself to inadequate scientific methods. And what is the reply from you. You have quoted some studies conducted by neuroscientists and some papers published in that area. Either you have not understood my question or you do not want to answer. To put it in more blunt terms I am asking you the champion of science to first set your house in order before venturing out. I hope you have got it.

But i may beleive that Swami Nityananda might have had brain activity which was different from the normal ones (just that he perhaps misused his energies - some examples of those who misused siddhis for petty gains were mentioned by Yogananda Pramahansa in his book Autobiography of a Yogi, wonder if Nityananda will reform himself).

You appear to be so sure about everything including the need for Nityananda to reform. I do not know much about this Nityananda. I heard that he was a guy who was trying to experiment with Shiv Sutras and I have been searching without success for a copy of the Shiv Sutras to know what it was all about. Then I lost interest because my topic of interest is altogether different.

I do not know which linguistic evidences have been dismissed. If you can mention specific instances that wud be good.

Is it really so? Do you remember to have read the words வாழி ஆதன், வாழி அவினி, ஓதுக பார்ப்பார், நெல் பல பொலிக etc., That is the literary evidence I am talking about. If it is still unfamiliar I suggest that you read some of my posts in this thread again. Then you will get it.
Cheers.

 

[sangom]

Sri Sangom,



Your taunt is not missed. நடமாடும் தெய்வம் is the term by which the Kanchi Acharya is known among his followers. But then your jumping to the conclusion that the original God dies the moment the நடமாடும் தெய்வம் walks the streets of this world is a frivolous statement to say the least. The Acharya was accepted as a நடமாடும் தெய்வம் by many people and I think we should be careful not to hurt the sentiments of such people when we write any thing about this belief.

Shri Raju,

I have used the honorific "living god" because it is found used to glorify many of the swamis, gurus, etc., and my remarks (about the original god becoming dead) is also dependent upon that general usage; it has nothing specifically linked to Kanchi Acharya.

But my astonishment is that here in the twentyfirst century is a small group of self-proclaimed Tabras who are unable to tolerate a simple logical - but tangential, if at all - remark against one of their pet beliefs and it hurts their sentiments and hence is termed as a "frivolous" statement. I wonder what would have been the fate of some tiller-bard of the Cangam age who showed the temerity to say anything against the Brahmans, that too in the presence of the ruler who could kill at his will!!

 

[sangom]

namaste shrI KRS ji.

I am an admirer of RamaNa MaharShi myself and have read books about him by shrI RA.GaNapati. He is an advaitin who believed in ajAti vAda, yet, please remember, his devotees addressed and referred to him as BhagavAn (which he never objected), he made his mother be worshipped as god by consecrating her samAdhi and he accepted and wore vibhUti-kunguma prasAdams from temples offered to him by his devotees. He had even shed tears at some devotees' afflictions. The point is, although a jIvan mukta, BhagavAn RamaNa admitted and taught levels of spiritual development towards Advaita, which is why he did not reject the karma and bhakti mArgas of his devotees.

So, if I say that RamaNa is BhagavAn--God, who is still living to me, would you say that it cannot be because it would mean that the original God is dead? Or would you just stop at, "Nice. To me however he is not a god", thus restraining yourself from finding fault at my belief or making fun at it?

Please think about this angle too, when you seek to defend a member so quickly even before he answers, specially when that member IMO is only persisting at making fun of other views while seeking to establish his own rational views as the ultimate truth. You chided him gently when he tried to make fun of SivAnanda and he managed to wriggle out of it with some unknown/less known references, and yet he is back at it, specially with a sage like KAnchi ParamAchArya.

Regards,
saidevo

Shri Saidevo,

I have neither any extra respect nor any disrespect for any of the matha heads; for me they are just like more erudite and orthodox people. To use the usual honrifics like Paramacharya, Jagadguru, etc., is also tradition as I have seen elders using those. Only when I see the late 20th. century eulogy of "natamaadum deivam" or "living god" I find it amusing. It may be hurting to some, but so is the case with the Jihadists if anyone of us even dare to make a similar remark about their beliefs. I was till now unaware that orthodox Brahmanism has much to compare with the Jihadists. But having known this, I am sure the best course for a normal human being like myself without fanatical beliefs, is to stay as far away as possible from such groups. Thank you for showing me the true path of Tamil Brahmanism!!

 

[happyhindu]

HH,


Now that you know, please try to get serious.



It is sad that you have wasted so many bits and bites in posting matters which have no relevance to the basic questions I raised. May be you are believe that you can fill up the space with quantity.Now you have brought in Nityananda into the picture alongside Yogananda Paramahans. I asked you whether the science knows what it wants or what it is talking about when it asserts that the intuitive knowledge should prove itself by subjecting itself to inadequate scientific methods. And what is the reply from you. You have quoted some studies conducted by neuroscientists and some papers published in that area. Either you have not understood my question or you do not want to answer. To put it in more blunt terms I am asking you the champion of science to first set your house in order before venturing out. I hope you have got it.

Dear Shri Raju,

In your previous post you mentioned nothing reg science "when it asserts that the intuitive knowledge should prove itself by subjecting itself to inadequate scientific methods". I never thot science "asserts" itself that way. Anyways, you have your opinion and i have mine.

I have underlined something in your post above. I feel it is unbecoming of you (that too a scientist) to issue challenges of that sort. This is getting un-necessarily aggressive. So i shall refain from posting any further.

I wud like the readers to know that absence of replies from me does not mean acceptance of Shri Raju's posts (if he makes any in future).

This is from your previous post:

Now you are opening another front. The spiritual vision and spiritual experience are as much human experiences as other worldly experiences. Science does not discriminate between one experience and another. Scientists try to understand empirically each such interesting subject by subjecting it to their rigorous analytical methods. So you are on slippery grounds when you declare this way on behalf of all scientists. As a scientist I do not agree with your this assertion.

Now I ask you this question: Which science are you talking about. The science which authoritatively spoke about the Newtonian mechanics or the science that talked about the Quantum mechanics tentatively and is still in search of the elusive grand unifying theory? To which science should acharyas speak about their spiritual experiences? Who is going to decide what is bogus and what is not?

I underlined something -- just to let readers know that i have not declared anything "on the behalf of all scientists".

Is it really so? Do you remember to have read the words வாழி ஆதன், வாழி அவினி, ஓதுக பார்ப்பார், நெல் பல பொலிக etc., That is the literary evidence I am talking about. If it is still unfamiliar I suggest that you read some of my posts in this thread again. Then you will get it.
Cheers.

This is another topic. If you can conclusively prove that ஓதுக பார்ப்பார் refers to vedic-brahmins then that wud be good. I shall only read such discussions as i have nothing to post on it.

I have nothing further to converse with you Shri Raju. I consider the conversation between us closed for now. Thanks.

Regards.

 

[sravna]

The remarks of Shri.Sangom pertaining to the Kanchi acharya is in very bad taste. People think by putting on the cloak of rationality they can be blasphemous to anyone, even God not being spared, Shri Sangom's remarks being an example. Shri Sangom by his comments has not just offended a single person but a whole lot of believers at the core.

I am sure moderation will be applied to such remarks. Anyway it seems to me that the best way to respond is to ignore such posts in total as not deserving any attention.

 

[pviyer]

Shri KRS Ji,

I had hoped that here we cud discuss into the tradition of the trayi-veda and understand reasons why atharva was not accepted as a veda by the trayi-veda group. This is not something that pertains to the colonial times. It is not me who is claiming that atharva-veda was not originally accepted as a veda.

How can PV claim that "So her claim that it is proven that atharva veda is not an original veda is not only misleading but it is insulting to all our legendary vedic scholars" ?

Is it not better had you made your statement on atharva veda -That it is the argument of some scholars that atharva veda is not an original veda. To make more grand claims forces us to respond.I understand that you use the original vedic text rather than a sampradaya. But you should be aware that before claiming it is a well accepted fact, I perfectly understand requests for citations, and it would be good and friendly if you had better ways of putting this point across. I was thinking I was speaking to a friendly person before that post that you brought across. We all need convincing at different levels. To you, it may be more or less granted that there is a traditional controvery on atharva veda. To me it is not so obvious. So thats my entire point. The reason I addressed sangom is simple, I dont want to get into prolonged arguments over what is certain to be disagreed upon. My only point of all this, is if you needed specific reasons why I made a statement or whether I have a source of information that indicated my statement, you would have got the exact means I used to put forward that statement, in full truth. I have nothing to hide and I dont come from a family which spins tales and concocts things and we as a family are known for being honest and truthful.

 

[pviyer]

Shri Saidevo,

I have neither any extra respect nor any disrespect for any of the matha heads; for me they are just like more erudite and orthodox people. To use the usual honrifics like Paramacharya, Jagadguru, etc., is also tradition as I have seen elders using those. Only when I see the late 20th. century eulogy of "natamaadum deivam" or "living god" I find it amusing. It may be hurting to some, but so is the case with the Jihadists if anyone of us even dare to make a similar remark about their beliefs. I was till now unaware that orthodox Brahmanism has much to compare with the Jihadists. But having known this, I am sure the best course for a normal human being like myself without fanatical beliefs, is to stay as far away as possible from such groups. Thank you for showing me the true path of Tamil Brahmanism!!

Dear Sir, we are all living gods, but only those people who are able to remind others that aspects of god can be seen within them qualify to be used that title. You are free to think that something is amusing. But to many of us, god and spirituality is witnessed and known only because of paramacharya and therefore he is a living god to us, because he was alone capable of reminding us that god was not an abstract and unknown , unheard personality. To me , paramacharya is a great source of inspiration. My first traditional reading on the vedic tradition comes from paramacharya. I started doing sandhyavandam with faith because my grandfather always stressed on sandhyavandam quoting from paramacharya and he himself was inspired to follow it. My faith did not come let me down, gayatri mata gave me spiritual vibrations and this feeling has made me sensitive to even what a priest in a temple recites because I feel filled with vibrations when these mantras are recited. These vibrations are as pleasant as the loveliest breeze that can be felt anywhere. It is smooth and wonderful. To me that is proof. I may not have everything, but I am gifted with a great wife, without so many expectations. My wife's grandfather subsisted on the veda rakshana fund. Where would they all be without paramacharya doing so much to inspire us all.To me , without paramacharya, my grandparents wouldnt have stressed all this, to me therefore paramacharya remains and will remain an inspiration. I cannot prove my assertions and I dont need to. There are a number of people out here who have experiences with mother gayatri and paramacharya. Like me there is no way they can go to a lab, and get some certificate applied to them.
So you may find paramacharya being worshipped as amusing. I am not sure if I always think paramacharya is right, but because I give priority to what he says, I think it always worthwhile to reflect and quote what he says. To others devotion is much more. What is wrong even if he is not great like maha vishnu or shankara. He was the living representation of the gods, and the only way we could experience the presence of god ourselves, and therefore it is not so illogical for his followers to call him a living god

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sravana.

I am glad that you have taken exception to shrI Sangom's remark about jagadguru KAnchi ParamAchArya.

I am sure moderation will be applied to such remarks. Anyway it seems to me that the best way to respond is to ignore such posts in total as not deserving any attention.

Please do not seek to ignore such posts but stand up and be heard about your taking exception, as you have done now. I am sure that the majority of the 15,000 plus members here would be on the side of our Hindu dharma and tradition, believing the Vedas to be divine and inerrant, and our traditional gurus to be gods; and it is my feeling that many members--new and not so new--are wary of posting here to avoid being bombarded with the verbal missiles of academic scholarship where those scholars have neither any spiritual experience nor would be prepared to recognize any, even on the part of a sage.

 

[pviyer]

Raju Sir in line with your thinking. I feel that all experiences of the physical world is a function of nervous system states. There is then our own inferences from these experiences. Since science has not come yet to explaining this entire function, many scientists have tended to ignore the experiences of some highly elevated saints and seers. Because to reproduce these experiences within themselves the scientists will have to take a journey in karma and bhakti, many levels upwards which these saints have attained, and cannot be experienced easily.

 

[sravna]

Shri Saidevo,

I have neither any extra respect nor any disrespect for any of the matha heads; for me they are just like more erudite and orthodox people. To use the usual honrifics like Paramacharya, Jagadguru, etc., is also tradition as I have seen elders using those. Only when I see the late 20th. century eulogy of "natamaadum deivam" or "living god" I find it amusing. It may be hurting to some, but so is the case with the Jihadists if anyone of us even dare to make a similar remark about their beliefs. I was till now unaware that orthodox Brahmanism has much to compare with the Jihadists. But having known this, I am sure the best course for a normal human being like myself without fanatical beliefs, is to stay as far away as possible from such groups. Thank you for showing me the true path of Tamil Brahmanism!!

Dear Shri Sangom,

How can you call the beliefs of the orthodox people as fanatical? As far as the orthodox group is concerned, the spiritual knowledge has a greater appeal for them than other knowledge. But I have not seen even one from that group putting down science and technology except yours truly who is 'guilty' of that offence. But it is a totally different thing to be criticizing the philosophy of something than to be criticizing revered people and fundamental beliefs.

For all the great respect I have for Shri KRS Ji's competency in moderating, I think it is better to be objective and lay down some broad guidelines or even rules, as to what is strictly not permissible in discussions, to prevent these recurring unpleasant situations.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sangom.

I notice that instead of replying to my post no.479 where I have explained about the implication of your reference, you have chosen to reply to my post no.482 addressed to KVR but that is alright. I also understand that even rationalists are capable of emotional statements, as evident by your comparision of orthodox Brahmanism (of today) with the Jihadis, which everyone knows to be ridiculous.

Shri Saidevo,

I have neither any extra respect nor any disrespect for any of the matha heads; for me they are just like more erudite and orthodox people. To use the usual honrifics like Paramacharya, Jagadguru, etc., is also tradition as I have seen elders using those. Only when I see the late 20th. century eulogy of "natamaadum deivam" or "living god" I find it amusing. It may be hurting to some, but so is the case with the Jihadists if anyone of us even dare to make a similar remark about their beliefs. I was till now unaware that orthodox Brahmanism has much to compare with the Jihadists. But having known this, I am sure the best course for a normal human being like myself without fanatical beliefs, is to stay as far away as possible from such groups. Thank you for showing me the true path of Tamil Brahmanism!!

 

[pviyer]

The terms ஓதுக பார்ப்பார் has been brought into controversy. I know that the terms ஓதுக mean the same thing in tamil and malayalam which branched off hundreds of years ago. பார்ப்பார் is a word we all know who it is used to referred to. The people who contest its meaning can help us all, by showing evidences that this could mean something other than what it is used in regularl language

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

But my astonishment is that here in the twentyfirst century is a small group of self-proclaimed Tabras who are unable to tolerate a simple logical - but tangential, if at all - remark against one of their pet beliefs and it hurts their sentiments and hence is termed as a "frivolous" statement.

'Small group' and 'self-proclaimed', are the adjectives used here to describe brahmins. While the first adjective is indicative of a mind-set which does not tolerate independent dissenting views of minorities because they are a small group. It is as if small groups have no place in this world and in any case they should not stand up to the majority. The second adjective further strengthens this inference and indicates irritation at the temerity to remain defiant despite being not recognised by the majority. When the majority does not recognise brahmins , they automatically become a self-appointed motely crowd who are to be dismissed with contempt. When beliefs are attacked, whether they are pet ones or not, it is painful for ordinary human beings. Jihadists are not the only sensitive people. The ordinary poor simple minded brahmin is also sensitive though brutalized by the majority of the society. It is with great difficulty that he is keeping his values in tact in the midst of his struggle to keep his body and soul together.Whether tangentially or otherwise there was no need to needle his belief.

I wonder what would have been the fate of some tiller-bard of the Cangam age who showed the temerity to say anything against the Brahmans, that too in the presence of the ruler who could kill at his will!!

The ruler and brahmans are two different entities. The mistake is in mixing up these two. You can add the tillers as well to this concoction!! That way you can add one more chapter to the defence arguments: the brahmans themselves were the kings whenever the sangam met and they themselves took the avatar of tiller bards and sang the glory of themselves. They were the singers, the audience and the judge all roles thrown into one and hence the whole of sangam literature is pure fraud!!!