True sir antagonism exists between sects even of the same religion (popular examples: between shaivas and vaishnavas, between shias and sunnis, between catholics and protestants). Whatever is this concept called "religion" is truly amazing. It can bring out the best and the worst in any man.Did not Pushyamitra Sunga, the samavedi brahmin king, try his best to destroy Buddhism also?
Even sects within one and the same religion are antagonistic.
Have not yet explored the scenario of brahmins versus buddhists in Sunga's time (for that matter, have not explored buddhism seriously yet). So far i had only explored two religions, islam and christianity (found both highly unsatisfactory). Am now reading about Jainism. So am coming across quite a few face-offs between the 'hindus' and the jainas.
This one quotes Charvaka's thots on (avenging) Duryodhana's death: The Mahabharata in Sanskrit: Book 9: Chapter 63Are you referring to Mahabharata itself or some recent book? If it is the original M.Bh., will you kindly give the parva-ch reference.
And this one describes how Charvaka was killed by the Brahmins in Yudhistara's court: The Mahabharata in Sanskrit: Book 12: Chapter 39
Here is the english translation for those who wish to go thru: The Mahabharata, Book 12: Santi Parva: Rajadharmanusasana Parva: Section XXXIX
[An aside: i find that even Medhatithi's works "disappeared" over time - because it allows varna-crossovers. And it is sorta well known that in the bid to promote themselves as brahmins, the chitpavans interpolated the shayadri khand and caused the original version of sahayadri khand to disappear. So texts "disappearing" or getting interpolated is not new. I suppose there are people who will do anything to be called brahmins (someone said 'brahman kahlane kiye kuch bhi karega'). And this is the sort of 'casteism' (a corrupted system) that gets emulated down the hierarchy as well].
Geerpuram Raghavan (GNS) quotes the Lokayata philosopher Madhava Acharya in his book "Discovering the Rigveda" and says that the Brahminists falsely described the Brahmanas and Aranyakas as Vedas: Discovering the Rigveda - Google BooksThis is new information for me. Any references?
Am told this has been elaborated in the book "Carvaka / Lokayata: An Anthology of Source Materials and some recent studies". But have not read it yet.
Sir, as far as am able to understand, it is sorta accepted among historians that the brahmanas / texts on sacrifices were written in the kuru regions. But the vedas (samhita) itself is much older. So the basis that the brahmanas were added to the vedas at a later time is not entirely unfounded i suppose.
Thankyou for the info sir.One view is that the Upanishads were the outcome of those who had reservations about the Vedas and the early Brahmana texts which generally supported the sruti. While the Lokayatas were outright rebels, the Upanishadic sages were reformers from within. And they expressed not one uniform view point but differing opinions. It was Sankara who wrote his bhashyas on the major Upanishads and gave rise to the impression that all the Upanishads expressed one view.
Would this mean that the Purusha Sukta was added to the Rig in the dharmashastra period (after 500 BC or perhaps around 2 AD)? Anyways sir, we know how full of illogical stuff the purusha sukta is. It is a wonder that it is taken as a pramana for chaturvarna by the purvamimansa followers.Smritis lay down social laws and their basic premise is the cAturvarnya, which has the purusha sUkta of the rigveda as its source. It is thus that the various smritis claim sruti status, I think.