By now it is quite clear that Elst is responsible for importing vast quantities of low grade quasi-fascist/western conservative "ideas" into hindutva. In the below sample, he little realizes that the positivism/empiricism/IE studies he swears by is just an earlier variant of cultural marxism. His supposed hippie past is also in doubt - there is no idealistic strand in him. A vulgarian to the core, rationalized as "rational atheism".

He is also ironically responsible for the fanatical AIT-believing sect among the "RW".

===============================================================================

@gaur[..]
11 days ago
​ @cryptonash16  Sapta Sindhu is Punjab and Haryana Region not whole India.. Haryana And some part of Rajasthan is Brahmvart, where vedas were written. And Aryavart is more older than Name Bharat..
1
@crypt[..]
7 days ago
 @gauravsharma_7  but that is just North West India.. How about North East, East and South??? The name India/ Sindhu or Jambudvipa is good enough to represent whole India.

@darkprince2490
20 minutes ago (edited)
​ @gauravsharma_7  it is literally ridiculous to confine vedas to some local tract - they had full sway over the entire course of bharata. A bandhu sitting in TN today is not any more distant to ganga in terms of mind space than some "local". same was even more true in the past. Also, westerners have falsely applied the logic of western empires to Bharata - they need some political unity for "influence" to spread. this was not the case among the heathens like us. Their empire based influence is a translation of the imperial nature of monotheism, and reflects even deeper division along the lines of tribes vs hostile outsider heathens. Our organizing was completely different. Elst is a fraud - the positivism he swears by is an earlier version of cultural marxism. At some point it colonized the hard sciences so it appears to be something different than what it truly is... its core is a colonial orientalist enlightenment discourse that fed into both mills' history of india and the eugenist race science of IE. Our tradition was much richer in lived reality than some formalized texts. we are only seeing a small snapshot of that diversity. Elst's method requires that diversity get generated via corruption of an original text with meaning. this does not apply to bharata where diversity of traditions was not ideologically generated, ,and their meaning was always multivariate from the git go.

===============================================================================

@vedritvik
5 months ago
 @Shiva-zj6od  No. Terms like "तुर्वशे यदौ" like in Ric 8.45.27 translated "Yadu-Turvasu tribe" by western "scholars" does not mean so most of the time because they did not care to study Nirukta (very important for understanding Vedic Sanskrit words) and they translated literally while Vedas are supposed to be understood in context or you will get stupid translations such as in Purusha sukta where they consider the creator Purusha's limbs when Ishvara has no body like us, Ishvara is VYAPTA-everywhere. Yadu/Yado in general means man/simple man / enemy who obstructs some work / adharmi / etc as per different scenarios in Vedic Sanskrit. The word comes from dhaatu (root) "yat" (yat+u = yatu = yadu) that could mean anything from to distress, beat, order, collect, work, prevent, remove, return, barter, purify, etc., hence CONTEXT MATTERS. Please do not be fooled by western translators, my friend. Bharatiyas who translated Vedas do not call them "translations", but "commentary". Vedas are words of knowledge gifted by Parameshvara to us.
 

@darkprince2490
10 months ago
​ @subramaniamarunachalam130  so, according to you, JSD is a casteist and racist both!
It's like an abrahamist accusing indians of "heathenry" though the concept is only found in the bible and makes sense only there!
12
@subramaniamarunachalam130
10 months ago
 @darkprince2490  one of jsd's complaints in this speech: "the caste system was destroyed when the British brought abt an employment system based on qualifications". He whines abt it like it's a bad thing  what does that mean? That he wants a birth based employment system. Maybe you should actually pay attention to the actual things he says than blindly applauding all his nonsense
5

@darkprince2490
9 months ago (edited)
​ @subramaniamarunachalam130  You're just fabricating allegations. No, JSD does not want a "birth based employment system". And, no, he is not talking about every tom dick and harry "job" out there. He is talking here about preservation of veda which has been the province of pathashalas and barring that within families themselves. Even your blue eyed boy Amreeka celebrates "family businesses" to no end. JSD is concerned with the preservation of India's culture which is essential to ensure foreign imperialism never strikes this land again. I'm sure that will dissapoint a faithful sepoy like you.
What JSD says in this video is that Indians/hindus had to resort to getting jobs in the colonial sepoy beuracracy after the native industries had been destroyed. Western authors say the same thing and India is not the only place this happened. There were no such thing as "jobs" prior to the rise of "professional classes" in conjunction with Europe's looting/criminal network that it deployed throughout the world. Even still, in Mahabharata, the pandavas take positions as various types of workers, including as an advisor to a king. Academics have identified a military market operating in Maratha times. So, your understanding of Indian social structure is woefully inadequate and you just conflate the slave/serf feudal system operative in Europe for millennia in which the church owned all land/"peasants" with that of Bharata. In europe, the nobility were opportunistic collaborators with the church until they struck out on their own with Anglicanism.
It is actually from the internalized monotheist attitudes (master/slave, believer/nonbeliever dichotomy) of this sepoy collaborator class that any identifiable casteist and racist attitudes seeped into Bharatiya society (with these attitudes anachronistically mapped onto varnas). For example, who promotes racialist theories like AIT in indian society? Answer: the secularists, a colonial collaborator class. Mughals also had such a collaborator system called Mansabdari system in which collaborators aped muslim manners against unbelievers. Casta is a portuguese term. And racism is well known for its origin in the west as an extension of Christian enslavement of nonwhites. These "snitchy" and dystopian collaborator systems are necessarily hierarchical, being copies of the European/Churcjh feudal system, but they are very different than social system in Bharata. No varna ruled over another in Bharata, even the kings were bound by dharma. And none interfered in the cultural practices of another - the heathens were known for their cultural tolerance.
The dysfunctional, dystopian, and paranoid dynamics of an overgrown church bureaucracy (which is what western monotheist "society" is), where diktat and fatwa rule the roost, is not the same as a natural heathen society where tradition, dharma, rta are guarded and prized. Two completely different beasts.
At any rate it is a fallacy to think of a varna as monolithic entity - the kshatriya did not conspire about brahmins and vaishya. Kshatriyas fought against other kshatriyas. Similarly Brahmins were no self-interest group. To conceive of them as such requires attributing to them biblical levels of conspiratorial thinking, more rooted in atrocity literature than reality. Sharm kar be itna behuda mat ban.
JSD sometimes uses western terms so he may have said "caste system" in some off-hand way, but he usually distinguishes feudal caste slave/serf system of Europe/mideast from jati varna of Bharata. Jati is ethnicity, which necessarily exists in every culture. Jati (from gyati=knwledge) itself is a term implying a guild and not necessarily "birth". Rama and the ferryman were of the same jati (Rama as ferryman) and so the ferryman did not charge Rama anything. Even today, such professional courtesy is shown in bharata. Varna is a theoretical term to understand various levels of duty in a Dharmik society. Still, the real ethnic marker in ancient Bharata was gotra which was actually shared between across varnas.
if you want to say that spirituality was monopolized by the Brahmins, then even that is wrong, because all ties are renounced in the various renunciate orders.
I suggest you take a look at the statement by jitendra tyagi, who left cult islam, where he states that there was no individual-level animosity between neighbors before arrival of monotheists in this land - yes kings fought each other but there was no nafrat at the public level. This nafrat is a consequence of the believers, where the early christians refused civic participation in preference to their own ideological company. Similarly, no identity politics in ancient Bharata.
You need a master class in decolonization from JSD.
You will always flounder if you lack a basic understanding of the differences between a monotheist "society" (church hierarchy writ large across a society it conquers or "harvests", exploits) and a heathen society (unstructured by edict, but whose dynamics can be interrogated via the conceptualization of varna). 

================================================================

@darkprince2490
10 months ago (edited)
This is venturing into the deep end but still, it is a learning point..
There are actually hundreds if not thousands of faceless hindu intellectuals going back more than two decades on whose backs both these two giants stand. Due to temperamental differences, JSD acknowledges their contribution while RM does not. And it is this difference in mindset that leads to friction between the two. RM has tried to confront JSD on some supposed gaffes. And JSD irked by these continuous minor interrogations finally called it quits with RM. Likely the temperamental differences are based partially on their different origins, RM is poor vaishya background with american corporate influence who always "takes credit" for "his work", while JSD is poor brahmin background. As said of the brahmin, their words may be sharp but their hearts are sympathetic. Likely, RM saw some of "his" points reflected in JSD's speeches and lashed out passive aggressively. And it bulit up to a rift.
RM has swung much further towards JSD's position as the years have gone by. For example, he used to actually be against focusing on AIT, which he said detracted from more important issues. He also attacked mathams directly by calling them "moron swamis" perhaps little acknowledging their historical constraints. In Hindu society, it is the mathams that "empower" or protect society by their sadhana while it is the duty of society at large to provide a safe place for the mathams. (For example, the sister protects the brother with raksha bandhan, or the priest protects the king or sponsor of the yagna with the tying of Kalawa). That is, it's not really the Matham's role to fight foreign invaders and their ideologies (The intelligentsia class was actually kshatriya in ancient bharata). Subconsciously, RM may be chancing upon this dynamic with his term "intellectual kshatriya" (which he applies to himself). Side point: in the shastra, the kshatriya has soft words but a hard heart. From the example of RM, we can say the vaishya (vast majority of hindus as husbandmen and artisans with a small "trader" offshoot) have hard words and a hard heart.
Thus, RM's shoot from the hip style ("moron swamis") also irks JSD.
JSD himself has been moving to his current position - for example, he used to believe that caste discrimination was hindu in origin, while he now correctly acknowledges the colonial origin of both caste/casta and caste discrimination attitude (the believer/nonbeliever distinction of monotheism when applied to a colonial collaborationist setting/bureaucracy morphs into what we recognize as casteist attitude which is related by type to the disdain the monotheist has for the nonbeliever; while hierarchical and static castes themselves have never existed in india and have been inappropriately and anachronistically conflated with both jati ethnicity and native ritualistically enacted theorization on the varna-s). (Here RM was much ahead of JSD - he did the initial work on Risley).
RM's critique of monotheism is based on its history-centrism (ie, the reinforcing conflation between the two monotheist concepts of manifest destiny/"progress"/fate and singular historical factuality/"truth" eg, Jesus is the son of god), and within this are based his exposes of cultural appropriation, inculturation, control of the narrative, and institutional abuse of power. While JSD's conceptual framework is broader and more generic, based on a conceptualization of the monotheist self as unilateralist while the heathen self is relational. Using this more basic conception, taken from Ghent, JSD can derive much of RM's work and go deeper eg, into monotheist alienation and monotheist "moralizing ethics" derived from a self-asserting/intentionalist "moral self" or "believing self" utterly alienated from its surrounds, from nature. From this position, JSD can also derive the whole gamut of historical monotheist colonial/political interventions. Interestingly Ghent and RM also had a rift.
That said It's not important to concentrate on the differences between the two. They are both stellar and on the same side, unlike many other pretenders/western collaborators masquerading as "rightist intellectuals" who are actually among our enemies.

M Shas[...] ​​Rwandian ethnic identity itself was introduced by the Belgians.

M Shas[...] Mahmood Mamdani states that the Belgian colonial power designated people as Tutsi or Hutu on the basis of cattle ownership, physical measurements and church records.

@sha[...]
2 months ago
Could the rise of communism in kerala and Bengal have some correlation to the stinking rich Brahmin-landlords in this region? Majority had no ownership of land.They only had the right to work and no right whatsoever for wages.
In China the communism dove toes with their culture and national interests.But in India the communists have always postures against national interests.This needs a clarification.Otherwise the right may not seem to be as right as is being debated.Communisms relevance needs to be put in the right place.
8
@anan[...]
2 months ago
In Kerala Brahmins were.not the only landlords. And tenants were sometimes very rich and often well off. (Not the peasant tillers). While five to ten percent were wealthy, the majority of Brahmin  "landlords" earned humble lease rents say 500 to 1000 kg of raw paddy per annum with which they had to meet their expenses and obligations.
6
@[...]halGucci
2 months ago
Marxist in WB reaped the benefit from millions of migrants who came from East Pakistan. The narrative of Brahmin landowners in Bengal is a gross generalisation, Bengali Brahmins dominated in education but Bengal had landowners from all varnas including sudra varna.Again, Bengal is fertile and food was plenty and had ancient communities that had flourishing rural industries in textile, pottery, handicrafts,which disappeared under the British Raj. Bengal endured man-made famine too under the British , something that was unheard of before the coming of the British. The landless ,homeless migrants of Partition, and the body of Mohammedans who stayed back, and those that have continued to come in and taken over lands forcibly with the help of Jyoti Basu's government gave the Marxist their stronghold over WB politics.
3

@darkprince2490
2 months ago (edited)
"Majority had no ownership of land" is because the land cannot be owned in heathen systems - just as stated by Chief Seattle halfway across the world. The Deity or king had marginal title and grants were made directly to the village level for land worked communally. To even think of selling land was inconceivable to the ancient indian, so aggregation would have been impossible. The native state cess was always marginal, while the colonial cess was extractive. The brahmins you speak of were displaced colonial collaborators feeding into the brit jamindari (colonial reward) system that itself was a copy of the earlier mughal/nawabi mansabdari system (also, imperfectly, copied by rajputs). Later even the native middleman was removed under ryotwari, and the propaganda campaign that accompanied that was the early communist agitation. The communist served the aggregation purposes of the colonial state and later the nehruvian state, blaming the native for disposession and poverty brought about by the colonials. these days they serve western corporates. both the caricature and reality of Sethji are colonial in origin. In ancient bharata, the vaishya or cultivator had traditional rights to the land.
it is like coming across the early brahmin dominated military companies in EIC and ignoring the collaboration and foreign company aspect and talking brahmin soldiers subjugating the population! 

 
@aru[...]
2 months ago
Yes communism has done the dirty work the west and Islam .sai you must study Marx’s manuscripts of 1844 to understand some of his spirit.I am not a Marxist although I did my PhD from the American University in philosophy I studied The Frankfurt Scool .
Not just Abrahamic, but Aristotelian as well This is my critique of you and Malhotra , You let The entire Aristotelian philosophy stay intact , and Aristotelian rejection of inductive logic in favor of Doxa is the basis of western exclusivism and it is bolstered by Abrahamic religions because it has the backing of Aristotle and thus the entire corpus of western philosophy

@darkprince2490
2 months ago (edited)
JSD is only concerned with the enlightenment and after in his book. He takes Kant/deontology to task and indirectly implicates Mill's utilitarianism via an excerpt on British bureaucracy and caste. Can these two ethical systems be derived from aristotle's character/virtue ethics? Confomity to a (moral/"rational") standard or set of standards?  While ideological partisans argue as to which is "correct" or "best", an outsider heathen can see the two acting in concert in the colonial project to sterilize the natural and natural cultural worlds.
From Kant there is a clear line to the Nietzschean and from Mills to the Marxist. Both of which together make up the modern. JSD lays bare the modern and rationalism as a variation of religion. It may start getting too complicated for activism purposes to implicate aristotle since aristotle is nominally pagan.

@aru[...]
2 months ago
 @darkprince2490  I will have to read him before I can reply , but thanks for introducing this to me.
My issue was that we in India are still within the Aristotelian paradigm which is the basis of Abrahamic thought , thus getting into epistemology is important Indic epistemology has a window into inductive reading through pramana shastra, the west has no such theme, but induction is introduced through science alone and thus religion and science are bifurcated ? There is no such fissure I. Indic thought , including the Eastern Chineses thought systems as well It  is interesting that Soviet Marxism failed because abuse it was unable to adapt to the changing conditions, and did not rely on accepting failure as a springboard to success. Thus ehen they had problems they went looking for answers in Marx Lenin or Plekhanov , not in real life, as they were indoctrinated by their Christian framework The The Chinese  being  practical went for practical solutions and succeeded. China needs to totally abandon collectivism , but they are in the right track. Yes they want to be  imperialists like Europe but I think in time they too will realize their roots and go a different way Very interesting .The attack needs to be on ontology and epistemology

Dharmic warrior
@Kashsoldier
"learned through media" looks like  you did. Charvaka was a fake metaphysics created by colonialists to promote hedonism, greed and gluttony so that then Indians focused more on Kam rather than Karma. Since it is mentioned in some books do not mean it is part of the tradition.

In other words, you have to logically and experientially validate them by having correct understanding of Vedic metaphysics. There are just 3 main metaphysics. Sankhya = Advaitha + Dvaitha. They don't contradict each other. Advaitha and Dvaitha are INCOMPLETE without each other.

 

 

the indologist as an expert in forcefitting ie, "empiricist"

Two different respondents noted the incongruity between Elst's transformation of Karma into "Just world theory" versus[a] the traditional understanding:

@yoge[...]
1 day ago
Very myopic view of things. 1:06:02  For eg: reward & punishment are a human personification. The existence of Dharma doesn't make The universe 'Just' in the sense of righteousness. The universe is 'Just' in the sense of cause & effect, everything will bear the consequences of its actions/choices, period. Good/bad actions are man-made personifications.

@rohi[...]
1 day ago
Karma is just consequence
It does not have moral value attached to it

My response noted that Elst's moralization of Karma situates karma in a normative framework that imparts colonial value to Karma; The flow of Karma is implicitly moral, but is not used as point of colonial harangue by Jivas[b] (in contrast to western normative "just world theories" deriving from the similar/approximate christian "just war" theories and "God is just" deontological theories/theologies). My response was as follows:

@darkprince2490
3 minutes ago (edited)
One instance. When ISKCON founder Prabhupada was pruriently asked about morality by westerners, he responded that the dharma was not about morality - morality is a trifle concern; that is, right conduct is taken as a given in Dharma and built-in. It does not require a separate theory, which is only needed in course of social engineering, which is of course the primary concern of the west and its abrahamism.

Morality emerges or rather is implicit in Dharma. 

Elst's entire talk here about "just world theory" is just another case of "thopna" of christian derived theology/theory (in this case specifically, christian utopia) into our Dharma. Of course, Elst, always soldiering on, will respond there is nothing particularly christian about a "just world" - but he is just ignoring the historical development from christianity to Enlightenment.

It is [only] in response to Elst's exercise in anachronistic theological force-fitting that we as heathens need to resort to such concepts as "personification" and "man-made", diabolical invention, etc.[c]

[a] Note that it is Elst who through his colonial reinterpretation of Karma induces an Aristotelian dichotomi-zation/dialectic-ization when the native necessarily responds to his mischaracterization. The native response impinges upon abrahamist catagories like symbolism, personification, amorality (utiltarianism; utilitarian normative ethics), and so on. The discourse is pulled in the direction of Abrahamization and can possibly serve as an inoculum for abrahamization, at least in "academic" (western) discourse about Hindu"ism". Karma gets transformed into an ideology. Another case of this is where Karma and other native categories are interpreted in social darwinist colors by some deracinated types. Note that the two Hindu responders to Elst incorporated both intentionalist (agent-intensive; nearly synonymous with the deontological (moral) duty that requires a primary agent) and utilitarian (agent-free; situational ethics that structure agent response) elements in their responses. Elst's initiation of the Aristotelian dialectic as he appropriates heathen elements into his discourse also reflects the historically colonial nature of Aristotelian discourse/ethics that either fed into or was appropriated and transformed by colonizing monotheism. We see here another path for creation of "moral cretins" (SNB) out of Hindus: their traditional ways of going about are divested of morality by incorporation into a foreign utilitarian framework or conversely made ideological by incorporation into a foreign deontological framework.
[b] The jiva is thus quite different from an agent/soul that carries/evinces ideology/belief as seen in abrahamism.
[c] Note that the heathen response incorporates monotheist categories of the Devil's invention/creativity. Elst incorporates karma into Just world doctrine (theorizing/theologizing) and then the heathen response gets structured by aristotlian dialectic; thus, a colonial dialectical discourse about karma gets initiated. Also reflected here is the appropriationist and corrupting nature of western empirics that posits explanations/theories claiming to describe the devilish or diabolical inventiveness of the natural heathen world. Thus positivism has both millenarian (social engineering) elements and explanatory (discursive) elements, and these are complementary and essential in the framework of positivism/empiricism. Aristotle both authored works on ethics and rhetorics, recalling their identity/unity in western (colonial) practice.

Reference: Sangam Talks video titled "Bhartiya Chaturashram: Historicity And Extrapolation" by Koenraad Elst" published on April 20, 2024

No atheism in ancient bharata

[Poster 1]
[..]I am a Hindu atheist, a follower of Charvaka. Charvaka, also known as Lokāyata, is an ancient school of Indian materialism. It is considered as one example of the atheistic schools in the Hindu tradition. Charvaka holds direct perception, empiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, embraces philosophical skepticism and rejects ritualism.

[Poster 2]
I don't personally like chavakas they are pure mock-whom-you-don't-like people..
Moreover theres a flaw in it

It’s pretty clear there was no school called carvaka - the term was just used to denote egoists in general without denoting any associated “philosophy”. It certainly was not atheism which is an Enlightenment extension of monotheism wherein God itself is devoured by monotheist-like iconoclasts. Ancient Hindus were not belief-centric; therefore, there was neither monotheism nor atheism in ancient bharata. Technically the term carvakas refers to sophist or “sweet talkers”.

There has been a concerted effort by missionaries/indologists and modernized deracinated indians influenced by western nihilism (usually propounded as part of the american project) to project atheism or unbelief onto ancient hindu texts using stray and incidental terms. This is a theological necessity for western religion - to find analogues to the monotheists/believers who not only had corrupted religion (hindus) but were never “contacted” or revealed to in the first place. Atheism or char-bak in ancient bharata is all modernist projection and strawman making.

The language of these modern indian “atheists” such as “rejecting rituals” betrays their dependence on monotheism.

For most ordinary current day indians identifying as “carvaka” under cultural influence, it is better stated that they are nonpracticing hindus.

That the “carvaka” denied even samsara signifies that they were just contrarians, better understood psychologically than philosophically. when they supposedly state there is only this world, they are stating the hindu reality that nothing exists outside this universe. These have all been twisted by colonial minded westernized thinkers to signify atheism - eager to find their ideological kin in ancient texts. Some of the verses used to support carvaka have been quite obviously fabricated while others are misinterpreted: eg, nirishwar refers to nirguna, the formless Deity.

Feyerabend completely exposed “rationalism” - it is just ordinary problem solving which certainly existed before modernity, as did technology. Interestingly, we also see the “rational” posited against the trope of the “irrational” native in orientalist literature - mimicking earlier monotheist invective against the heathen.

The oft cited verse in veda: “or perhaps He knows not” certainly is not skepticism - opposites are often cited in connection with Purusha: Thus Shree Krishna both acts and does not act.[a]

That nothing survives of the carvaka in text form also signifies their nonexistence as a school. Not that it was lost. We have plenty from the nastika jains and bauddhas. The fact that the “cunning brahmin priest” who erased the carvaka school gets invoked here again shows the dependence of this entire argument on protestant narrative (just like the “denying meaningless ritual”).

Nastika signifies post vedic or who follow other rites/traditions than vedic. Originally the three terms nastika (skull bearing), ajvika, and sraman all signified the ascetic saivaite orders including aghori who were distinguished from brahmins. These, again, had nothing to do with atheism.

In china, they “discovered’ communism in ancient china. Similarly, in india, missionary-allied DMK thinkers discovered atheism in ancient india! Likely this was a part of the project to falsely portray early monotheist christianity in india - a theological necessity as well as a contrivance to make indigenization of christianity less obviously problematic: see, ancient india was full of “deniers”

 

[a] not knowing in heathen ontology is an action, not a statement of belief, a manifesto, a declaration, a profession of belief, etc as seen in abrahamist ontology. 

================================================

it's important to remember that there is no such thing as school of carvaka - no writing is known of it, no school has been extant in any historical period or even before, and there is certainly no continuity with the same up to today. It was just a foil category denoting conman or fool or contrarian or sophist (car-vak literally means sweet talker) in hindu texts. Just as vatsayana did not endorse debauchery in kama sutra - he was just merely chronicling some of the ways of the world - just so, no hindu acharya has ever endorsed "carvaka". similarly buddhist texts talk of dvesha or "hatred' as an impediment to enlightenment. these are all terms referring to mundane ways of "ordinary" people which even then were likely a microminority in a Dharmik society as Bharata. 

Bharatiyas all indeed venerated the devas, even those associated with Nastik schools like Bauddha (concentrates on shunyata or dissolution of Self) and Jainism (concentrates on Ahimsa or anti- ontological violence). Nastika itself refers to post-vedic where the tirthankaras and/or boddhisattvas are given an elevated position. Similar to Sai baba etc today.

The conflation of carvaka or lokyata or worldliness with western atheism was a project of early jesuits, later taken up by their compadres and humsafars, the imperial indologist class. western atheism is a product of the Western Enlightenment that secularized christianity. atheism has a long and traceable pedigree in Europe as an extremist branch of christianity.

Mehra and his band of asinine followers are peddling wholesale secularism and they want to visit upon hindus the same colonial straightjacket as all the other seculars. We shouldn't pretend they have some connection to an ancient sect anymore than nehru or romila thapar belong to an ancient sect. They are political opportunists functioning as agent provocateurs. They are also trying to displace intellectual hindutva with dressed up secularism and mehra in particular is trying to do inculturation for western atheism.

Indeed, we can say there was no atheism known in ancient bharata. As said in this video by Pankaj Mishra the existence of the Deva-s was never in doubt to ancient (and current) Hindus.
==================================

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
This was a much needed setting the record straight by Shri Maldahiyar.
THERE WAS NO ATHEISM IN ANCIENT INDIA. ATHEISM ORIGINATED IN EUROPE IN CONJUNCTION WITH SECULARISM and thus INNATELY HOSTILE TO HINDU VAIDIKA TRADITIONS.
"Nastikas" like Jainas and Buddhists all have Devas and these are the same as of Those the Hindus. They just give a preference to their line of teachers - Tirthankaras, Bodhisttvas, etc. Nastika means "heterodox".

"Carvaka" was a catch-all term meaning fool or buffoon, habitual contrarian, sophist, criminal/charlatan, or egoist in the ancient texts. It is like the term chewtiya used today. There is no authentic school of "carvaka" and  their supposed writings do not exist and probably never existed. In fact it was the early jesuit indologists who cleverly conjured up this "sect" in order to project disbelief onto the ancient Hindus (for obvious reason of facilitating conversion and colonial collaboration). One hundred years from now some jesuit indologist will similarly propose that the school of "chewtiya" existed in ancient Hinduism!

These indologists have screwed up our understanding so bad that today there are many who will even claim that advaita and dwaita and sankhya are atheistic[a] though these were founded and expounded by our Rishis and Munis!

[a] this appropriationist characteristic of atheism whereby the various darshanas are cross-culturally subsumed under its aegis signifies the identity of atheism with the category of monotheist religion.

============================

@vinayaktraders72
8 months ago
न मृ॒त्युरा॑सीद॒मृतं॒ न तर्हि॒ न रात्र्या॒ अह्न॑ आसीत्प्रके॒तः। आनी॑दवा॒तं स्व॒धया॒ तदेकं॒ तस्मा॑द्धा॒न्यन्न प॒रः किञ्च॒नास॑॥२॥ There was neither death nor immortality and nothing to separate night and day, That One existed enclosed in nothingness, there was only that One and no other. The dualities such as death/immortality, night/day were not there. When creation itself is not there, dualities cannot exist. Dualities are an inherent svarupa of the nature of the world. The Rushi immediately asserts “That ONE” is present. This assertion of the Rushi is his emphatic experience of the ONE. Other than “That ONE” nothing else is present. Indicating The “other” “this visible universe” has got folded back into the ONE. in our tradition we know the importance of the ONE.
mahadevan
1
@anujhe
8 months ago
correctly explain

@darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
Rather than "the one" you should state "the incomparable Brahman". "One" can be misinterpreted in the current intellectual climate.

================================

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
 @A[...]  Nothing survives of "charvak" because there never was anything there - charvak meant fool or buffoon in the ancient texts. "Nirishwar" is just a random term and it has nothing to do with atheism. It is like saying that the movie Nastik "promotes" atheism because the title is Nastik, when the exact opposite is true.
There is no atheism in Hinduism. It is an erroneous and abusive notion.

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
 @g[...]  He's just a subversive trying to turn Hinduism into a playground for his western atheistic ideology. The "debates" in ancient India were between enlightened gurus discussing nature of Parmatman. Atheism comes from the west and in fact atheism is an extreme branch of monotheism. We need education on these foreign ideologies, not debates with the interested and motivated parties.

@p[...]
8 months ago
There was no concept of atheism in Hindu civilization. Naastiks, followers of Charvak philosophy were outcasted and looked down upon. And Charvak is not Hinduism. It's just a philosophical commentry. A faith which entertains atheism is bound to fail at some point of time!

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
Exactly. The ancient romans actually had to create some of these new terms like "atheist" to describe the Christians. Also, Christians accused romans of being "atheists" or nonbelievers in their plagiarized Jehovah. Atheism was a category within christianity in the ancient period and was conjured up again during the Enlightenment when Christians contacted heathens in Asia and the New World. Atheism is an extreme form of monotheism.

========================

@QoSab[..]
10 months ago
Another brilliant talk by JSD  I just have 2 points that one would request for considering: I agree all aspects of Sanatana must be retaimed as is exactly and not tampered with..I would however advocate that there are certain reforms which the Dharmic clergy must congregate and agree on for the survival and betterment of Sanatana: women must be allowed with the agreement and guidance of Shastras to play a role in the propagation and practice of scriptures and temple traditions (in all the capacities as much as possible bearing in mind the sanctity of each belief system..(for example, NOT at the Sabarinala temple obviously because I too am #happytowait) and also their inclusion in the armed forces for the simple reason, that a large number of them are caregivers and hence play a more important role in what passes to the next generation..also though Carvakas are atheists, and though they cannot comment on practices and traditions in religious spaces, they need to be included and counted in the Hindu fold, simply for the sake of them being Hindu and for survival

@darkprince2490
9 months ago (edited)
Bhai, lets not conflate "carvakas" with atheists. there has never been a surviving group called carvakas in bharat, no one knows what they were or whether they really constituted a bonafide group, and none of their supposed writings survive, while the term itself seems to have been used as synonymously with buffoon or fool in ancient works. At the most, it denoted egoists, which are plainly decried across the Sastras, and likely it denoted egoists of the common folk variety (eg, yuddhisthara is described as beset by a Charvaka troublemaker who questioned his conduct in the war; the term seems to have been used a catch-all for contrarian behavior, contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism). In conttast, Atheists are a philosophical product of the Enlightenment; in intellectual history, atheists very closely bound up with secularists (the term "secular atheists")  who hound Hindus. Atheism is in fact an extreme branch of monotheism. 

Regarding the term nastika: Nastikas like Jains and Buddhists actually have Gods but they are usually depicted subordinate to Buddha or Tirthankar. Nastika seems to mean heterodox or even latter day teaching/tradition. Disillusioned persons are typicalyl described as Nastika (eg movie about Partition called Nastik), both terms do not seem to connote  a "philosophical level stand" in Bharatiya usage - just a set a behaviors.
Jesuit indoologists originally wanted to project disbelief onto ancient Bharata and they came up with this fabrication of Indian atheism. Every Darshana at one point or another has gotten lumped into atheism even Advaita and Samkhya; the latter lauded in BG. So, obviously there is a categorical level mistake in our understanding. On the whole, atheism  is an anachronistic usage for Bharata, and the goal of such usage can often be identified as subversionist. 

Yes, there are many confused and deracinated Hindus out there that really should be guided and not left in the morass of atheism. they will only deracinate further and turn real enemies. You can see this  clearly with certain self branded "charvakas" today.

Surya Tilak SRI RAM

 

The corrupting influence of orientalist indologists

@dvikauglau[...]
1 day ago
Really good talk. Didn't know about etymology of the word Dharma. Also it was traced back to eusebia.
It is extremely important that we teach this to all youngsters. 

@damodar[...]
4 hours ago
It wasn't traced back to eusebia. Eusebia was mentioned as dharma's equivalent.

 

@darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
 @damodaranvt6612  Except that Eusebia is not equivalent to dharma. Dharma has many contexts including one of cosmic duty. While Elst believes in a one true meaning that gets corrupted  (a "philological" stance that he inherited from christianity). It is clear that in this talk he is trying to whitewash the duty/"righteousness" aspect to dharma and paint it in quasi religious terms of piety, and from there as a version of (corrupted) abrahamist religion. Note that an early church father was named Eusebius. This is to make appropriation and then damnation easier. Embrace, extend, extinguish. Elst is an atheist, a stance which he also falsely attributes to hindus.[a]

As someone who is utterly alien to bharata, Elst like all westerners is incapable of understanding bharata or other pagans (ancient greeks) he pretends to support. That much is clear from this talk which is one canard after another.

The traditional derivation of dharma is well known, and is much richer in its explication: entire epics are about dharma. In dharma (the Way), rocks and animals have dharma. the devas have dharma, the Avataras have dharma, Rakshasas have dharma, and even Bhagwan has dharma. Does Elst's motivated pigeonholing (thopna) work here? of course not. But Elst will just hand-waive in his usual fashion - "but that all came later.. as Hindus corrupted their own religion, which they couldn't even understand... hehe." 

Also note that Elst bills himself as a "rationalist" - that is, just like the monotheists, he recognizes no obligations to any preceding culture, only to his own pretensions. That peculiar stance also feeds into his whitewashing of dharma as not having anything to do with duty.

It is also known that Greeks did not have an underlying unifying reality in their metaphysics similar to Tao or Brahman. Elst's canard about Dharma being piety undermines its aspect around balance. It is another LCD (least common denominator) approach meant to stultify the variegatedness of dharma, allowing for its recasting in western ideological/religious terms, and this  setting the eventual grounds for demonstrating its damnation/"error" (eg, in the atheist/"rationalist" context that Elst ultimately considers "true"[b][c]).  

Thus, the dharma yuddha also becomes undermined in Elst's "reading". Was Duryodhana's fault a lack of piety? Our itihaas and traditions has always maintained that it was mahatwakansha .. very roughly hubris.[d]

Dharma is context of Devas refers to duty to the Devas, not to a (state of) piety (which again is Elst indulging in christian anachronism).

Really tired of Elst and his white burden act. Just as every other westerner he loves to interfere, in fact driven to it by an ideological worldview, masked over as "rationalism".

 @darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
teach your kids ramayana and mahabharata - do not teach them indological propaganda.

===========================
[a] Indologists commonly claim a syncretist dynamic operating in ancient bharata whereby local cults were co-opted by a nonlocal (eg Vedic) cult. This view extends from an AIT type colonial framework and the existence of tribes as static operating units (for tribes vs native, refer to Keppens; tribes are ideological units and static, whereas the native is relational). What we state here is that the syncretist view is colonial and that what actually happens is that a centralizing and provincializing dynamic reflective of the believer-nonbeliever distinction is posited onto ancient bharata by indologists/academics. The "rupa" dynamic and the "lila" dynamic discussed by SNB and RM, respectively, and the supposed heathen cults in bharata have always existed in diversity. in fact the diversity, like that of language (Nichols), was far greater in the past. The vaishnava or vedic "cults" did not expand but an understanding of their essential forms was always diffused throughout bharata; just as Adi Sankara's influence spread into an already dharmik domain where the essential forms were implicit/known (and thus was well received), in the same way the diversity of traditions was always constituted in bharata. This version thus does not posit heathen cults as mini-religions/ideologies being spread by influence, but rather convergence of forms in situ, as experienced by a moral community. Thus the moral community of bharata (eg extending to SEAsia, CAsia, Japan, China, Mongolia, etc) contains within it the essential forms of all the extant traditions. It is only when these these heathen traditions are viewed through a western ideological lens that their diversity and common integration appears imposed or artificial. "Explanations" that require the positing of the spread of one cult require recasting these traditions as monotheistic ideologies ie, ontological violence to the heathen traditions existing naturally as a multiplicity of devas (ie, to "polytheism").
[b] it still isn't clear whether Elst is a crypto-christian atheist.
[c] traditions cannot be true or false.
[d] piety (ie, christian piety as the opposite of a state of sin) makes no sense in a heathen world since the value and reality of devas was never under question, nor mankind damned. Elst needs to transform this heathen world into one where there is skepticism/alienation (counterfactually represented as piety) in order to then negate it with his atheism, which he also projects into the ancient space (a "double shot", just to make sure the target is hit). Shraddha, tapasya, puja, prarthana are not piety. Also note that atheist Elst who is otherwise always salivating to remove superstition from our texts under pretense of historicity is eager to transform the texts as pious (christian-like). Both strategies converge to eliminate the Devas from the texts. 

Reference: Sangam Talks video titled "Bhartiya Chaturashram: Historicity And Extrapolation" by Koenraad Elst" published on April 20, 2024

Shri Ram Pran Pratishtha

 

Ahimsa

Even without looking into any verses it is clear that Ahimsa means protection of the weak. Even by analogy to samurai japan with its Bushido code, this is clear. Only when viewed through a western ideological lens, does ahimsa becomes transformed into an ideology ie, pacifism. Once the pattern of monotheist degradation and depredation is known, seeing through their subterfuge is easy.

Heathen historical sacrifices.

It is commonly stated that there was no sense of community among the ancient hindu/heathen. Of course, there was no category apart from the hindu/heathen; just as nature existed in diversity, so did the heathen. Only with advent of monotheism did the nexus or conspiratorial type of organization come into being, driven by an ideology- or belief-system based ontology. That is also precisely why there could not have been any type of nexus or conspiratorial organization, driven by ideology, and masterminded by a static class, in ancient bharata. A clear case of projection.

In consequence of their totality in ancient times, heathen evinced and pursued the ethical much more assiduously that the monotheists whose genocidal and de-culturing ways are signal.

Here we also encounter the claim the heathen were divided, while the monotheist united in purpose. The unity of the monotheists is prototyped in the tale of babel, unified by a unifying ideology based on some 'factor' (language, appearance, belief) while the heathen driven by the inexorable flow of karma. Were the heathen blind? Or simply as Swami Vivekananda stated, averse to pursuit of a totalitarian homogeneity if the path was through the suffering of innocents. perhaps they realized the connection between the abrahamist supremacist posture they saw, the deculturation/iconoclasm/surrender of the local/cultural it demanded, and the atrocities perpetrated. To us current heathen, the connection always been clear. As Swami Vivekananda said: we would rather suffer under extreme burdens than partake of independence at a cost to innocents (Paraphrase from Visuddhi films yt).

how provincialization is done - via ideologization

 इयं विसृष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न।
यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद ॥७॥
अन्वय- इयं विसृष्टिः यतः आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न। अस्य यः अध्यक्ष परमे व्यामन् अंग सा वेद यदि न वेद।
अर्थ – यह विविध प्रकार की सृष्टि जिस प्रकार के उपादान और निमित्त कारण से उत्पन्न हुयी इस का मुख्या कारण है ईश्वर के द्वारा इसे धारण करना। इसके अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई धारण नहीं कर सकता। इस सृष्टि का जो स्वामी ईश्वर है, अपने प्रकाश या आनंद स्वरुप में प्रतिष्ठित है। हे प्रिय श्रोताओं ! वह आनंद स्वरुप परमात्मा ही इस विषय को जानता है उस के अतिरिक्त (इस सृष्टि उत्पत्ति तत्व को) कोई नहीं जानता है

"The glories of Shri Vishnu Hari are legion and unknowable" - these types of statements have been refashioned as atheism in ancient bharata by modern atheist sympathizers.[1]

Of course to perform the heist, it is needed to read the veda along narrow provincial lines as expressing a dogmatic religion/ideology, and not circumscribing an entire cosmos  - it needs to be posited that they are the belief statements of a partisan or partisan tribe and of course there must be then be other disputants/stakeholders. If such constructions, well attested in aristotelian systems of dichotomy, are needed to usher in atheism in ancient bharata, then it is an artifice and forced reading.  The dialectic is used to operationalize some domain (eg. the heathen cosmos) as the arena of competing/oppositional ideologies/ideology sets.

Similarly, 'ek' as in 'ek aneka' signifies incomparable. SNB also has remarked on how 'ek' does not signify monotheism. Per monotheist operationalization, 'ek aneka' would be transformed into the one vs the many, and by inserting a meta-level of belief, further transformed into the believers of the one vs the believers of the many![a] The positing of the meta level construction of belief reflecting some revelation/theology/theory is needed for monotheistic operationalization/ideologization. Once made ideological, the domain then becomes contested.

An example of dichotomization/ideologization: positing the constructs of atheism/theism onto ancient bharata, as done by propagandists like Elst, despite knowing full well that these categories were generated in a monotheist setting. Or positing brahmin vs nonbrahmin caste (static and nonrelational) categories in ancient bharata, despite knowing that no such collective category as nonbrahmin existed in ancient bharata. These postulations, masquerading as philosophy/intellectual inquiry, are driving the monotheist agenda of ideologization of the heathen, making the heathen space contested, and the alien colonial disputants as stakeholders (who of course have an ideology based ontology), poised for setting the agenda and eventually wresting control.

[1] For example: the preceding statement would be transformed into an ideological statement: "I believe that the glories cannot be known" or " I do not believe in the glories". And then the ideological transformation whitewashed away by removing intentionality: "The glories are false").

[a] typologically, the meta-level of belief comes prior to its removal by de-intentionalization.

Bhagavan Shri Vishnu Hari in Vedas

 

Quoting from source:

Who is the God of the Purusha Sukta, Vishnu or Shiva?

Sripad Madhvacarya, in his Vedanta Sutra (1.2.26) Bhasya, quotes Brahma Maha Purana saying thus—

    "Just as the Purusha Sukta invariably declares only Vishnu, so be my mind ever devoted to Vishnu (alone)."

Acarya further quotes Brhat Brahma Purana saying thus—

    “All the Vedas and their supplementary disciplines do not, O Narada, declare Vishnu and Vishnu alone so distinctly and fully as the Purusha Sukta does."

Even further, Acarya quotes Skanda Purana which says—

    “At that time, great King Rama only is spoken of by every name (Rama was the subject of everybody’s talk), just as Vishnu alone is spoken of in the Purushasukta.”

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.1.20 states—

    तत्र गत्वा जगन्नाथं देवदेवं वृषाकपिम् । पुरुषं पुरुषसूक्तेन उपतस्थे समाहित: ॥

    “After reaching the shore of the Ocean of Milk, the demigods worshiped the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu, the master of the whole universe, the supreme God of all gods, who provides for everyone and diminishes everyone’s suffering. With great attention, they worshiped Lord Viṣṇu, who lies on the Ocean of Milk, by reciting the Vedic mantras known as the Puruṣa-sūkta.”

Skanda Purana 5.1.57.22-24 states—

    इति श्रुत्वा वचस्तेषां ब्रह्मा लोकपितामहः ।।
    समुत्थाय ततः सर्वैर्विष्णुलोकं जगाम ह ।।
    तत्र गत्वा समाराध्य विष्णुं देवगणैः सह ।।
    स्तुतिं पुरुषसूक्तेन विष्णोरतुलतेजसः ।।

    “On hearing their words, Brahmā, the grandfather of the world, rose up from there. Then he went to Viṣṇuloka along with all of them. For propitiating Viṣṇu of uncomparable splendour they recited Puruṣasūkta, for their own prosperity.”

Padma Purāna 6.124.17 states —

    पुरुषसूक्तेन यो नित्यं कार्तिके अर्चयेद्धरिम् वर्षकोटिसहस्राणि पूजितस्तेन केशव

    He who, everyday in Kārtika, worships Viṣṇu with the recital of the Puruṣa-sūkta has worshipped Viṣṇu for thousands of crores of years.

Source 2

Rig Veda 1.22.20: Vishnu occupies the paramount position. All the other deities look always to His feet.

Rig Veda 1.22.21: They always sing the holy sublime glories of Lord Vishnu's supreme abode.

Rig Veda 10.113.2: Vishnu is glorified because of who and what He intrinsically is. Indra, on the other hand, is only glorious circumstantially. (Vīrasaiva said in a recent post that Indra is a name for Shiva, so here)

Rig Veda 1.156.2: Vishnu is the most ancient of all, yet also the most recent. Nothing and no one creates Vishnu, yet Vishnu creates everyone and everything.

Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (of Rig Veda) 1.1.1: Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among devas. All other gods occupy positions that are in between.

Yajurveda Taittiriya Samhita 5.5.1: Vishnu is the supreme amongst devatas.

Satpath Brahmana (of Yajur Veda) 14.1.1.5: Viṣṇu first attained it, and he became the most excellent of the gods; whence people say, 'Viṣṇu is the most excellent of the gods.

RV 7.99.1: Men come not nigh thy majesty who growest beyond all bound and measure with thy body. Both thy two regions of the earth, O Viṣṇu, we know: thou God, knowest the highest also.

Narayana Sukta: The Lord Narayana is the Supreme Absolute; Narayana is the Supreme Reality; Narayana is the Supreme Light; Narayana is the Supreme Self; Narayana is the Supreme Meditator; Narayana is the Supreme Meditation.

It states this as well: Whatever all this universe is, seen or heard of—pervading all this, from inside and outside alike, stands supreme the Eternal Divine Being (Narayana).

Katha Upanishad 1.3.9: But the man who has a discriminating intellect for the driver and a controlling mind for the reins, reaches the end of the road, i.e., that highest place of Vishnu.

Shatapath Brahmana 3.6.3.3: All yagnas are for Vishnu alone.

Where women are worshipped, deity will reside

यत्र नारेषु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः
Means
Where women are worshipped, deity will reside, will bless.

Brahmins Integrated into society, not set apart

An exchange below. Would word slightly differently than AA: Yagna is much more implicit an ontology than the western social contract which is theory based. We underestimate western ontology which is much more legalism based with its intentionality/supremacy/"great man theory"/Nietzsche-an constructs serving to mask the underlying legalism. "Accepting each other gods" also refers to the indological construct/theory of syncretism - which is incorrect in terms of ancient Bharata. The Devas have always been considered the Rupa-s of Brahman Shri Vishnu, Mahadev, or Shakti, and are fundamentally united. SNB is to discuss Rupa in his book on ethics, but we (heathens/Hindus) have an intuitive understanding of it. It is only through the prism of splittist Aristotelian dichotomization (Western binary/dialectical/oppositional logic) that the we start to see Rupa as some type of colonial device of appropriation. The heathen sees no distinction in the Devas as manifestations of Brahman.

The heathen ontology of yagna is organic. The western ontology of theology/ideology constructs determining reality (reality is a result of the belief system/ideology/religion of some "agent") is artificial, almost parasitic.  

Also reminded of Mithra as Deva/Asura of friendship also being used for "contracts" in the ANE (ancient near east).

START:
suryasen​​ caste is a Portuguese term. brahmins were not a class, they were thoroughly integrated into society at all levels.

AA​ ​@suryasen exactly. listen to sanjiv sanyal. there was a social contract/yagya were every1 decided to accept each other's gods
END.

 

Static Caste/class/race/tribe mapped out onto relational varna categories

The various varnas have been portrayed in transformative colonial discourse as static in nature; a caste/tribe/class nonrelational type ontology has been imposed on them. in western ideological ontology, obligations are slotted in secondarily in terms of a patronizing ideology (eg, noblesse oblige, deontological duty), in contrast to heathen ontology where the relational forms the very core of the self.

Western construction of the caste system

@obscu[...]
11 hours ago
How many of the current Brahmin sects are actually Brahmins of the old India? I am asking this because there must have been colonial  "Brahmin" stooges who have distorted the hindu texts like crazy.

@darkprince2490
1 hour ago (edited)
to be honest, almost all jatis in ancient india were well versed in mantras and performed their own pujas and rituals. They would have been indistinguishable, on the basis of adherence and dedication to dharma, to a lutyens type modernist from what we call brahmins today.

For brahmins, the gotra is indistinguishable from the kula. While for all others, the gotra and kula are separate. The native explanation for this is that at some point in time an ancient rishi was the guru of the kshatriya/vaishya/sudra with the same gotra. Gotras are also taken directly from the Devas or their equivalents ie, a natural being like a mountain. Gotras are shared across kulas. All varnas and kulas were thus integrated. Rajiv Malhotra has recorded that one kula contained all 4 varna. 

(Don't try to parse out the above at the level of mathematical logic.. it integrates at a higher plane than the mere mundane.. at the plane of guna and karma. 

Certain Brahmin families were associated with certain kshatriya/vaishya/sudra families across generations. The same brahmin family would officate at the wedding of multiple generation of one kula. In a wedding, the bride and groom would each bring their own brahmin ritualist. Often the family members would chant alongside the priest, they knew the verses if not for any reason than the ubiquity of marriages in ancient bharata.

Brahmins were specialists in ritual - they are not the same as "priests" (ie enforcers of [church] doctrine) of the west. 

All bharatiyas (one moral community) belonged to the three varnas and were thus adhikaris to the veda. Vaishyas or farmers made up the bulk of the populace, unlike what modern detractors say. Sudras were a minority and associated with temples - eg devadasi and shilpis - Their emphasis on Kama refers to Kama/enjoyment of the Lord, not to mundane enjoyment. The term sudra gets used differently in different contexts in our texts... especially in buddhist texts.. just because a sudra is being mentioned, does not mean it maps out onto some dharmik community.

Mlecchas are outside our moral community because they do not recognize varna type inter-dependence, they have only 2 categories - master and slave and they need to invent apologia and ideologies for the same. We do not. This was pinted out even in our ancient texts where mlecchas were said to have only 2 categories.

Coming to your question, it is possible that those families that understood the colonial game jettisoned their kula association and kept only the gotra. This would make them synonymous with the ancient rishis.

In Bharata, there was no collaborator class, no financier class, no sepoy class, these are known to have come along with colonialism and played middleman and enforcer roles for colonialism. so no need for these classes.
Native bharata was not a colonial society outside of the theories of the missionary and his pet, the indologist.

Note that these are true "classes" in that they are utterly separate from one another, often in terms of brute genetics like Africans and whites in america.

Brahmins were neither a class nor a community unto themselves. Rather, they were a part of the wider community of Hindus. This is not some point of activism - it was actually the prior native state of affairs.

There is no such thing as some "secret brahmin cabal" trying to subvert other jatis; it is clear from this very language used seculars accusing brahmins, that they are projecting the conspiracy laden state-of-affairs in the west and monotheism onto brahmins. That is, there is an exact match in the common language of demonizatioin used in the west to that attributed by seculars supposedly to brahmins.

A class/tribe separate/ruling over others comes from monotheism, where the believer nonbeliever distinction led to ideology-based separateness and predation. This was all absent from Bharata - there were no ethnic fights between south and north, between biharis and bengalis, between telugus and Tamils... between vaishnavas and saivas... all these came with western colonialism when they applied their theories and policies based on those theories to bharata.

Historically: Brahmins were always integrated into their communities. Once the gurukuls etc were destroyed, it was only then that pan-indian associations of the basis of "caste" (same master slave dynamics as the monotheist term tribe, except mapped out ordinally into more categories, to inlcude an enabler nobility class between priest and peasant, later replaced by the professional) came into being, not just for brahmins, but other indian groups as well eg jats. The politics of jati and identity are traceable to this period, and was later exacerbated by mandal reservation politics (started by missionaries on the basis of prior EIC preferential hiring to service positions in the colonial state including babudom and colonial army). As traditional livelihoods became endangered and communities transitioned, they were picked off one-by-one by the colonial state's political exigencies until they gelled into interest and identity groups. This was never the case in ancient bharata. Did Dronacharya organize a mob of brahmins demanding permanent "employment", or did he go from Raja to Raja? 

Varna means category. Only when the term is essentialized (eg as the domain of some community, in colonial or translation discourse) does it become problematic. Devas have varnas. Pasu, pakshi have varna. Each varna has its own fighting weapon.

The above is necessarily an "idealized" account - I do not contend that ancient bharata was a peaceful utopia. But the type of (exaggerated) ethnic conflicts and street level hatred we see today is due to colonials. Even Jitendra tyagi who converted back said that there was no animosity at ordinary level of public functioning before the predatory religions. Will write more. Also see kusumlata Kedia's yt talk on rasthra versus state, and the books by Martin Fasek and Satish Sharma.
Jai Sri Ram

=================================================================

"Caste" is a European category that refers to the slave feudal system of Europe where everyone was enslaved by the church-nobility. this system was transferred to the colonies during colonialism (while the european population was "democratized" - basically every european took on the attitude of a colonizer). and this system was falsely mapped onto jati varna by indologists using AIT (which is false or fabricated) in a colonial blame-shifting and justification exercise. Casteism was also the internalized colonial attitude of colonial collaborators - basically colonial sepoys were the ones who tried to introduce "casteism" into India by "aping" western/monotheist attitudes to "lesser peoples", even while denying it, and also by their support to colonial theories (eg, AIT and its various sociological versions). 

If you look at the purported evidences for caste in india, it reads like basically a translation of the monotheist injunctions against the unbelievers. 

The original feudal slave system in Europe was theologically mandated in monotheism. That is precisely why they went looking for the "scriptural mandate" of this "system" in native texts. Just as Europe looked on its colonies as mere resources, so too are European ideologies parasitical upon native categories ie , in an exploitative fashion; the give-take relationship between native categories gets remapped using ideological one-way terms ie, an ideological lens is imposed on an experiential and tradition-based culture. In heathen cultures like India, there was no such thing as other-ization, stereotyping, ideologies, doctrines, theology, dogma, religion, ghetto-ization, or even exploitation. 

No return to paganism for Europe.

[Hindu ethnic 1]
9 hours ago
Pls take these questions next time -
Questions -
1. On decolonization : How can europe re-discover its pre-Christian roots ? Will this help europe to overcome compulsions always aligning with nato/ usa mandate?
2. On generational wealth continuity: If falling birth rates can be stabilised by the immigrant population, will europe be able to maintain a population that can earn, spend and consume?
3. On dedollarization: If fiat currency is going to be backed by something tangible, then what levers Europe has to back Euro- Gold/ commodities /natural resources / something else?
4. On trade and diplomacy: How do see Europe Asia relations evolve by 2035 on the back drop of wars in Ukraine, iran; recently signed free trade agreement between india and 4 european nations; IMEC corridor; complicated europe china relationship with italy exiting BRI and EU wanting to de-risk from china?

[Hindu ethnic 2]
2 hours ago
One Answer to all the above.......
De$ization.
And Gold backed currencies ( Digital or Printed ).

19 minutes ago (edited)
there is no going back to prechristian for europe. for that a sizeable real heathen population like Hindus is needed from where influence can radiate out. Saudi Arabia has a bigger chance of going prechristian than Europe. there are no remaining real pagans in Europe. Their "neopagans" are poseurs, have nefarious agendas, and of course lack a real heathen ontology.
It is impossible to derive a nonnormative ethics from a normative one. Europe/monotheism has the latter.
Why this concern for goras - after all they have done including intentionally starving your ancestors. Are goras concerned about balance of power in bharata?
Focus on Asia, including China. Building up Dharma here. Goras will string you along for centuries with their endlessly perfected con games. And then one day they will seek to "eliminate the competition"
Europe will fall into irrelevance. In US, a mad max situation will develop.

Notes on untouchability

Not touching as a practice in Bharata

Although there is much to say about "untouchability" in Bharata, there is an overarching ethic of permitting space to groups to develop and maintain their culture. As common to all heathens, there is no forced assimilation into a common culture via ideological conformity (ie, the peculiar ideological culture of the abrahamists). There was also the aspect to allow women to remain unmolested, undisturbed, as well as the sadhu and gai to wander freely the land and theor path not obstructed. The Ascetic also was not disturbed by touch nor the embodied divinity in a vigraha. Overall the practice of not touching, where it can be ascertained as a custom or practice) was heroic in nature and deferential to each being and non-being (inanimate objects also imparted with gender and being in hindi/sanskritik languages). To this the colonialist, per their usual habit, imparted base motives and complexed this practice along with other observations into an ideology of separation of apartheid. and ghetto-ization - more familiar from Europe. It is commonly said in the west that the Buddhists and Japanese and Shintoist/Taoists have a culture of silence. Buddha maintained silence for questions of an absurd nature. The Maun Vrata was also known in Bharata. Osho describes Eastern Art as meditative and western art as aggrandizing. In general, the practice of not touching also fits into such a meditative culture.

Note on ontology (developing out of SNB)

Note that not touching in Bharata is a practice, an action, not a belief nor justified by belief. When the missionary/indologist/anthropologist/colonial official interrogates the Hindu native informant as to why he does this action, the hindu gives ad hoc reasons and almost never embeds his/her response as part of some native theoretical paradigm (when it is, it is almost always traceable directly to some known colonial discourse eg, AIT). Perhaps a native narrative may be offered up - either from current vulgar Indian culture or from ancient times eg, the epics or puranas. But the presented theory/story is almost always an ad hoc explanation and not part of an established doctrine, theory, or theology (except as traceable to known colonial influence(s)).

Significant also is the fact that these stories are proffered in response to an eliciting inquiry from the colonial functionary who approaches the native as a savior or as a neutral observer. That is the inquiry does not occur natively in the culture either from the party not being touched nor from a third party within the culture. When this is stipulated to the colonial inquisitor, their response is always regarding the insidious nature of the perpetrated atrocity eg, the atrocious ideology (ie, ideology manifested as practice) is so thoroughly imbued into both the practitioner and the persecuted that they realize not the offense. Or that they are both complicit in a conspiracy of silence and denial. The former is the familiar non-ideological explanation and the latter is an ideological one. The ideological one precedes the nonideological one with the nonideological explanation being derivative in the sense that it has been emptied of intentionality - in much the same way as (marxist) materialist explanations using nonintentionalist "forces of history" is an intentionality-emptied account of the usual "great men actuating history" historical accounts.

Further looking will show that untouchability as construed by western interlocutors is a translation of the monotheist concern for idolatry (not setting up alternates to the "One God" or True Sovereign, ie, not playing God) transposed onto the native (as untouchability); the native is (falsely) poised as the sovereign enforcing or insinuating an ideology of separation/apartheid. This false insinuation transfers the sin of ideology from the colonizer onto the native and masks the colonizer, protecting the colonizer. The native is essentially "framed" via the construction of the native in the image of monotheist sovereign (who brooks no dissent and owes no obligations to anyone ie, not touched, alien to creation). Set up as a rival to the monotheist sovereign God, the native falls into idolatry (a moral affront to the believers and their God) in direct conflict with the true sovereign and thus becomes targeted in monotheist discourse. Thus, the untouchability believing native is framed for retribution by the believers. And the native is transformed into a colonizer, with attendant ideology, in his own land ie, becomes ideological.

As a category, an ideology/belief system based ontology allows for portrayal of the native as nonreciprocating, transforming the native into an 'agent' of some ideology. The category of heathen practice/praxis, in contrast, does no such thing - there is always reciprocation (even if it is conflict) in practices. In fact a practice with even inanimate objects transforms those objects as moral objects. Thus stones have moral presence in Bharata. The monotheist engages only with the image or construct or stereotype dictated by their ideology, but not with the object; thus ideology allows for dehumanization/demonization, the development of atrocity literature, or the recasting of heathen literature as atrocity literature, etc. Transformed epics or texts or oral texts, in such cases, become plagued by unifocal meanings (eg, as an expression of colonial bombast, colonial aggrandizement) and disputes - and they cease to instruct. They become objects of contention. The colonizer also becomes a stakeholder in them, as their true interpreter, imparter of meaning.

The materialist as a devolute of the ideological

The above shows the dependence of the materialist (including the empirical) on the ideological. The materialist preserves the original interpretative framework as well as the agenda of the ideological, but the removal of intentionality masks its dependence and generates its supposed neutrality. The materialist can then serve as a conduit or vehicle for further ideologization where ideology itself would seem inappropriate. In Bharata and Asia, this is seen where Communism/Modernity/etc pave the way for abrahamization (In China, after the Boxers defeated the American Methodists, the Methodist regrouped by sponsoring the cat's paw of Maoism; in Latin America, the church experiments with liberation theology which is then exported to the rest of the world as various shades of liberationism).

The western (social) empirical thus proceeds from religion/colonial derived theologies/theories (eg, regarding how untouchability evolves/evinces from the decadent or brutal nature of hinduism) and supports these theories with observation. Empiricism also contains its own deniability mechanism of an entire superstructured discourse about observation being tested to support the theory, essentially a reversal of the process of imposition of theory/theology.