Quote
What is it with some people in the forum who 'establish facts' just by asserting
or reasserting statements, like 'established, fact, authentic, anati, etc.
Repetition does not made it a fact.
Unquote

No difference with you Pathma reasserting statements like, the neo siddhantins
are fooling themselves and that you have for once established within the past 3
decades what had fooled the Siddhantins that Siddhantam is a pluralistic
philosophy for 800 years. What goes round comes round again.

Just proclaim your facts and refrain from smart remarks that is only backfiring
to you and your scholarship. Same repetition by you does not make it a fact.

--- In akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com, "Pathmarajah Nagalingam" <pathma@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com, "parayan2009" <parayan2009@> wrote:
> >
> > Vanakkam Anbu ayya
> >
> > It is an established fact that casteism in Hinduism is a post
buddhist/jainist phenomenon.
>
>
>
>
> Established fact?
>
> What is it with some people in the forum who 'establish facts' just by
asserting or reasserting statements, like 'established, fact, authentic, anati,
etc. Repetition does not made it a fact.
>
> Buddha railed against casteism, meaning caste has already degenerated. In the
yajur veda we already see the mention of caste-vocation trade names, and not
just the four varnas, and the mention of prostitutes. A chandala was despised
even then. Every other Hindu shastras mentions many castes.
>
> Of course there is nothing in the vedas that advocates untouchability. We just
don't know when and how it started. What we have are speculations.
Untouchability could have been a tool to stigmatise buddhists and jains and get
them to return to the Hindu fold. This is another speculation.
>
>
>
>
> > Our dear Agamists/siddhanthists will never open their mouth on how buddhism
was defeated. The main prime movers in that saga were Brahmins and Vellalars in
the case of Tamilnadu. This fact is being swept under the carpet to make a
picture that it was the EVR ised sudra who took on the might of Buddhism in its
heyday.
>
>
>
>
> Buddhism and jainism was defeated by the culture of agamism and bakti saints
and hymns which inspired the people, as said by Professor Arunachalam and
several others. The defeat started in the south from the time of Appar (6th
century) and then spread north with the destruction of Nalanda in the 12th
century. It had nothing to do with brahmins or Shankaracharya, although brahmins
today try and make that empty claim. On the contrary Shankaracharya was slammed
as a neo-buddhist even during his time! It was the muslims who wiped out all
traces of the already dying Buddhism. Jainism somewhat escaped total
annihilation by aligning with the Hindus as a sect.
>
>
>
>
> > For me, brahmanism and Sidhhantism are no two. The latter is a mutated form
of the former.
>
>
>
> You cannot find something more at extreme poles than Brahminism and
siddhantam. The former advocates a varna society with diksha for three varnas
only, while the latter advocates temple and home worship and diksha for all. The
former is beholden to the smirthis and the latter to the agamas. The former
believes in maya as an illusion while the latter believes in maya as a power of
god. In saiva society the saiva brahmin (gurukkal) priest is a mere employee,
had no secular life outside of the temples, and was never a problem. In fact the
smartha brahmin (iyer) priests were kept outside of the sanctum and had no role
to play in saiva society except as paid employees for sacraments.
>
> In saiva society there was jaati mobility. How else do you explain the fact
that my own uncle (mother's younger brother), studied in a saiva padasala and
worked as a kurukkal for over 60 years in Eelam till today, and now his second
and third generation are also priests?
>
> I could not find the vedic hymns you were referring to.
>
> Pathma
>