• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Theory of Aryan Invasion and Interpretting Scriptures

Status
Not open for further replies.

ShivKC

Active member
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

Active member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
...... 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!
 
Last edited:

Nara

Well-known member
.....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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

ShivKC

Active member
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

Active member
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
 
Last edited:

Nara

Well-known member
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.
Yes ShivKC, I did not want sarcasm banned completely. That is not to say, (i) all sarcasm is in good taste, and (ii) sarcasm must not be opposed. In this case, if you want me to see this as sarcasm, then I say it is in very bad taste and I oppose it.

... 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.
ShivKC, this analogy does not work at all. Even though this forum is named tamilbrahmins.com it is not restricted to Brahmins only let alone only tamilbrahmins. Praveen, the sole owner of this web site has made this point clear time and time again. So, Happyhindu is no more or no less a guest here as any of us. The rules of the forum apply to all of us in equal measure. We are all guests here, you can check out anytime, but can never leave :).

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.
It is amazing that you take it upon yourself to provide these explanations, you are not the owner, neither are you a moderator. FYI, in as much as this is an open forum and anybody can come and browse its content, by definition the audience/pubic is most definetely not just TB. From what Praveen has stated many times, this is a forum to discuss issues that concern TB, both for and against. The caveats are only to be civil and not be constantly negative.

Now, you, and many others, may feel some of the caveats are being transgressed. If so, you are welcome to state them with precise evidence. But you or I or anyone else have no right or authority to say who is a guest and who is not.


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.
This is just utter nonsense. Many people by nature are apologetic and often start out by saying, "Sorry to intrude", or "I apologize if I hurt the feeling" and so on. ShivKC, I just can't believe you are going on with such silliness. Let it go, let us talk about something more interesting, like missionaries or something. You know, many Jesuits spend their entire lives living with and helping hapless people all around the world. I disagree with their religion completely, but I really admire their commitment to their ideology of helping the poor.

Cheers!
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
sh.nara, will respond upon getting the reply from smt.happyhindu.
Shiva,

You are free to hold any sort of opinion you please as regards my presence here, or on my posts or on anything else as you please. Just wanted to let you know that i will not be responding to your posts anymore. You need not wait for any reply from me in order to respond to Shri Nara.

Regards.
 

ShivKC

Active member
Shiva,
You are free to hold any sort of opinion you please as regards my presence here, or on my posts or on anything else as you please. Just wanted to let you know that i will not be responding to your posts anymore. You need not wait for any reply from me in order to respond to Shri Nara.
Regards.

smt.happyhindu, you are free to stay away in responding to my post. but you have an obligation to respond to me, when you made a sweeping allegation that 'I'm of the club of threesome, who are behind you asking for your identity', and when i asked u to refer the post where in I sought your identity, but now you are taking shelter under 'the right to remain silent'. I deserve an explanation here, where I was behind your identity??.

fact is, like sh.nara, i also as a principle,donot run behind the poster or value one's post by his identity.
.........here, i wanted to highlight your changing stands to the forum members, esp to sh.nara, who unknowingly appealed for mass support for you, to condemn against the threesome club.

here i voice in support of the twosome sh.pannvalan/sh.tambra who openly asked for your identity, because, you at some point of time, may be a year or two ago, your were spotted of asking to reveal new members identity (thanks to the SEARCH option in our forum).

i spend almost two hours yesterday, using the seach option typing the key word REVEAL+IDENTITY and applied on all your posts. so tiresomely, i copied and pasted the message+url+post no, unfortunately my machine ran out of battery power and got shut down, before i could connect it to the mains, and lost that post.

anyways, im refreshing my memory of yesterdays search session, and posting few of your changing-stands an year ago, though I dont have the url/post no to give it as an evidence, 'at the moment'. I amrunning short of time to do the same search, but will do again if you insist..

here are some.

1) at one post you and ID - KRS were jointly demanding the identity of a person. on that post, you claimed that you have already openly admitted to the forum that you are an NB, and asked the other member the same to reveal, hoping he is an NB hiding with a TB forum id name

2) to another poster, you asked him to reveal his identity, and you projected him to be a christian missionary.


i dont remember the ID's of thaose person. But if you are refuting this, I can prove my point,n all I need to do is, do again those search , go through reading of 400 posts, repeatedly press Ctrl+F etc, and spend another 2 hrs. Im sure you may not ask me for that, cos you know well yourself about your changing stands.

your changing stand is not bad, but expecting others to change their stands, and projecting them in badtaste is not a good one.

so, please clarify your allegations, of me running behind your identity. You are accountable here with a response,and also accountable to the twosome whoom you claimed that they are behind your identity , but you yourself were at somepoint of time doing this..
 
Last edited:

happyhindu

Well-known member
smt.happyhindu, you are free to stay away in responding to my post. but you have an obligation to respond to me, when you made a sweeping allegation that 'I'm of the club of threesome, who are behind you asking for your identity', and when i asked u to refer the post where in I sought your identity, but now you are taking shelter under 'the right to remain silent'. I deserve an explanation here, where I was behind your identity??.

fact is, like sh.nara, i also as a principle,donot run behind the poster or value one's post by his identity.
.........here, i wanted to highlight your changing stands to the forum members, esp to sh.nara, who unknowingly appealed for mass support for you, to condemn against the threesome club.

here i voice in support of the twosome sh.pannvalan/sh.tambra who openly asked for your identity, because, you at some point of time, may be a year or two ago, your were spotted of asking to reveal new members identity (thanks to the SEARCH option in our forum).
On one hand you say you do not bother abt a person's identity. On the other hand you say you voice support for Pann and Swami who asked for my identity.

i spend almost two hours yesterday, using the seach option typing the key word REVEAL+IDENTITY and applied on all your posts. so tiresomely, i copied and pasted the message+url+post no, unfortunately my machine ran out of battery power and got shut down, before i could connect it to the mains, and lost that post.

anyways, im refreshing my memory of yesterdays search session, and posting few of your changing-stands an year ago, though I dont have the url/post no to give it as an evidence, 'at the moment'. I amrunning short of time to do the same search, but will do again if you insist..

You need not have wasted your battery on something so useless. There was a guy named SAPR. He did not like anything negative said about christianity but lost no chance at demeaning hinduism. Those who harbor any doubts can read up his posts. His identity was certainly questionable. But that was left to the discretion of the moderators. Are you the moderator to question my identity?


1) at one post you and ID - KRS were jointly demanding the identity of a person. on that post, you claimed that you have already openly admitted to the forum that you are an NB, and asked the other member the same to reveal, hoping he is an NB hiding with a TB forum id name

2) to another poster, you asked him to reveal his identity, and you projected him to be a christian missionary.

1) my identity is known to those who matter in this forum since atleast 2 years. So u need not bother abt it...and no need to hope on my behalf.
2) This was the case of SAPR. Its funny you claim to be just 3 months old but in your post # 149 you mention an old conversation between KRS ji and Nara sir regarding the use of sarcasm. And here you remember the SAPR incident. Anyways whatever decisions were taken in the SAPR case was by the moderators. So if you have any grievance about it, you can speak to KRS ji abt it.

i dont remember the ID's of thaose person. But if you are refuting this, I can prove my point,n all I need to do is, do again those search , go through reading of 400 posts, repeatedly press Ctrl+F etc, and spend another 2 hrs. Im sure you may not ask me for that, cos you know well yourself about your changing stands.
By wasting 2 hours doing an online search, perhaps you are venting old anger I dunno. But hope we can discuss missionaries sometime soon....

As for my so called 'changing stand' none of my views are permanent and all of them are subject to change.....

your changing stand is not bad, but expecting others to change their stands, and projecting them in badtaste is not a good one.
You are entitled to your views. Merely by discussing i do not think anyone can change their stand , it can only make them ponder over things....

so, please clarify your allegations, of me running behind your identity. You are accountable here with a response,and also accountable to the twosome whoom you claimed that they are behind your identity , but you yourself were at somepoint of time doing this..
If you are not running after my identity well and good. You need not have wasted your time with rambling posts like these. And the twosome, that is Pann and Swami are not saying anything here, so wonder why are you keen to represent them and claim that i am accountable to them also.
 
Last edited:

Nara

Well-known member
... esp to sh.nara, who unknowingly appealed for mass support for you, to condemn against the threesome club.
ShivKC, what I am opposed to is repeatedly hounding Happyhindu for her identity and snidely pointing out that she is NB, as if that is somehow relevant or noteworthy. That, I think is in very bad taste. It is not about a particular threesome, or twosome, or anysome.

ShivKC, I once again request you to let go of this useless topic.

Cheers!
 

ShivKC

Active member
ShivKC, I once again request you to let go of this useless topic.

Cheers!

sh.nara, its right thing for me to heed to your advice now.

still i am amazed, you a person, who always goes on tooth and nail till the end, until the person exhausts, but now, you want to give this issue 'A let Go' without any conclusions. wonder if its because of the twosome or threesome

since you have once made an appeal to forum asking to voice against the threesome, let me know my view about this person, and close this matter.

when i asked happyhindu to quote the ref of posts, where she claimed that i had sought her NB identity, there was no reply to that, till now. with that,a simple sorry would have made me content. instead the person digs on to some old issues of some XYZ members,and narrate some old incidents, which i couldnt figure out the head or tail of it.

even if she was genuine in what ever context, its admitted by her that she asked those persons identity,even if its a 2 or 3 year old discussion, its very much clear,by her own admission, happyhindu was also at one point of time, seeking identity of few other members, but was not behind their points or POV. so, according to me, there is nothing wrong in sh.swami/panvalan asking her identity. may be take it as tit for tat, atleast.

thankfully, i had few PM's from members recently, suggesting me not to venture with a debate with happyhindu, stating,that she would twist & turn the topic and goes personal. now when I look back at her recent post, the same things is very much proved there. she goes on telling, may be identifying myself to some of the recently banned members or what or who, I dontknow, or may be some past issues i dont know, but she is now projecting me as if I'm carrying some old animosity.

unfortunately, i was the one who aired the support for her, when sh.RVR threw our the எச்சி இல்லை - நாய் analogy and condemned him. I was just new then, and I remember this was around last deepavali. that time, i never knew about this split personality view, and I regret now for countering sh.rvr that time, so badly.

atleast for now, hope you will understand others feelings, before voicing for allies. this is what most of those who sent PM expressed.

Freespeech/right to question/right to question until its answered , all have their own limitations based on the target audience. even in a pure democratic set up, president is always immune to prosecution, pls ponder why.

armed with the right to information, one cannot go and ask for the 'nude snap' of the prime minister.all these rights are set by the society or by the public or by the forum.. norms of these rights are not set by any individuals.

anyway, i have an interesting point to discuss with you about 'who the target audiences of tb.com' are.. this week, bit tied up, will log in this weekend and discuss.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
V

Vivek_V

New member
@ Happyhindu - 1. You, not me, should prove about the Karmakanda. 2. The absurdity of taking vedic verses literally shows you are incorrect.

"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."

Challenging claims is what we must do, but insisting on your interpretation when you hardly understand the matter clearly is arrogance. What entitles me to answer these? It was not the point of discussion and there may not be a clear way to even "prove" it. The point I made, and which stands out as completely relevant is that your comment on post # 79 was made due to a bias you have and that is exactly why you are ready to buy the interpretations of the M.A.s whose view of Aryan Invasion brought down from the British propaganda vilifies brahmins. Nara as an ex-brahmin is thus favorite to this view too.

I have read both lines of ideas, while you have read only one. Atleast now you have a changed rhetoric from post # 79, where you spoke as if you clearly know more than anyone.

"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."

Where did he reject it, and at that time how did he not point it as a tribe conflict that you are speaking of? This thread started because you made a claim that our scriptures bias on the basis of appearance, and label "dark skinned, noseless, bull lipped" people as "dasyus". What I cam to point from there was the inconsistencies in your idea.

"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"."

Yes, and "arya" and "non-arya" are and have been only based on character! They are not tribe names, there was no tribe called "arya". So, when Yaska speaks of characters he is refering to specifics. No fixed clans - unlike you said Yadus are not aryas etc, which is a completely false and racist interpretation. They become labelled as per their character, which is clear from the Mahabharata verse. Now it doesn't matter if the Mahabharata came later, because these people had access to the same samhitas you are reading - a change in meaning would be explained if ever it occured. So you are left to explain HOW and WHY a change in meaning as you claim would have come.

"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). "

Yes, the Kiratas (not the "anarya tribe") live in Andra. But the Kiratas are not anarya per se. Is it so hard understanding this meaning?

X is a good man.
X lives in Mumbai.

Does this imply Mumbai is the abode of "good men"? Of course not. Sayana clearly didn't say where (geographically) the aryas or anaryas originated.

"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."

Have you cared to "investigate" the incorrect renditions of the word "arya" after it was put forth in European propaganda of the colonial era? When it was clearly and incorrectly put to speak of a race of blond, white skinned people? You don't care of this.

"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. "

I never denied certain brahmins of the time did side the British because they wanted to feel a pride of being related to the ruling class. In anycase, in all your anti-brahmin overtones, you like the DK or DMK don't care one point to look at the many conibutions to society brahmins have done.

People like Nara have come to the stage of feeling an immense completely misplaced guilt, in which they feel they need to be judged for something of the past when all of society practiced it. I have explained this in the other thread.

"Already replied above that I challenge you to prove to me that Adi Shankara had accepted advaita to be derived from Karmakanda."

YOU are left to do proving here that Adi Shankaracharya said the samhitas were about "war" or a "killing spree". It is hard to find such a distinction itself that the karmakanda spoke of "war, eulogies to kings" and "killing spree" and that this part of the vedas is separate or absolutely unrelated to other parts. This view is only yours, and is a modern one. So its you, not me who is left to do any proving. So this question hits back at you to find a comment that said that the karmakanda was a separate and very different part of the vedas, unrelated to the others.

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

Being honest, neither you nor me, nor even the present day mutts are fully aware of the method of discourse or learning of the past. I have read European political history, and know under what atmosphere ideas of "aryan race" was spread - while you accept it without understanding the nuances.

"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."

Anyone can make a career from hating brahmins too and that is exactly what DK and DMK have used to cover their own ill-treatment of lower castes, corrupt officials like A Raja whom they send till the government. And yes, to make my stance clear as I always have I am saying arya and dasyus did have "wars", just that this was not a real allusion to clans or tribes of that name warring. Dasyu and Arya clearly stand for character, traits etc. and weren't fixed to individuals or clans per se.

When we read something like the vedas taking things literally makes things absurd. For all your claims of "bull lipped" and "dark skin" you actually wanted to show that vedas were about a slaughter of african-like people. But if the term is taken as "bull jawed" its unimaginable as to how a person would be bull jawed. Other references to characters with 99 arms etc all clearly make it non-literal. While I understand that, you insist it is an account of violence perpetrated on someone because it justifies your propaganda against "fire-rite" brahmins as oppressors and violent people.

I almost missed your response to me which is why I didn't reply earlier.

Regards,
Vivek.
 
Last edited:

sangom

Well-known member
A good lot of discussions have gone on here about whether the term arya denotes an ethnic stock. But it appears that the word "airiya" originally denoted an ethnic stock which has, in course of history, lost that connotation in the Indian side. See here.

Hence I feel the position if we look to our scriptures alone - from the rigveda to bhagavatam, we may be able to understand this transformation better. To me the term "Arya" is like a "liger" or, closer to our religious lore, "narasimha". We will be able to trace both the tiger's and lion's (human and leonine, in the second case) characteristics.

So, I think there need not be an effort to prove that one or the meaning is only there for the word "arya".
 

Nara

Well-known member
....
still i am amazed, you a person, who always goes on tooth and nail till the end, until the person exhausts, but now, you want to give this issue 'A let Go' without any conclusions
ShivKC, this is a very general statement. Tooth and nail could simply mean I am passionate about the points I make. If this is the case, then I concede. But, tooth and nail could mean attacking people on a personal level, like you are now doing to Happyhindu. I think I have never done that. If anyone can show that I have done this I will feel regret and express it too without any ambibuity.

..... its very much clear,by her own admission, happyhindu was also at one point of time, seeking identity of few other members, but was not behind their points or POV. so, according to me, there is nothing wrong in sh.swami/panvalan asking her identity. may be take it as tit for tat, atleast.
IMO, identity of an individual must never be questioned, it is behavior that must determine whether one deserves to be moderated or not. If Happy did it earlier it was wrong too. Tit for tat from some third party with intent to put her down is childish at best and hateful at worst.

You must also note that Happyhindu was questioning sapr because he apparently was pushing Christianity. IMO, that was not sufficient reason to question sapr's identity, but isn't it ironic that later, she was herself accused, along with me, of sympathies for missionaries.

Also, Happyhindu's identity is as much known or even more than many others. We all know Happyhindu is a female, we all know she is not a TB, we all know she can't read/write Tamil. This is more than what we know of many other people in this forum.

...a simple sorry would have made me content.
And you say I go after people tooth and nail. Looking for apology even when deserved makes the person expecting it unworthy of it, IMO.

ShivKC, go after Happyhindu all you want on ideas and views, I may even join you if I disagree with Happy's views, but identity discussion is useless and a waste, irrespective of who engages in it, whether you or Happy or the twosome or threesome or anysome.

Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks