Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to respond. I have a bit to read with all of your thoughtful suggestions.
Nagaraj, I take your point that bhaktas, etc might not feel compelled to act in this particular way. However, my ethnographic work in one essentially bhakta community shows how they do privilege and conduct regular yajñas because they have the impression that it is essentially a dharmic duty that is central to help uphold ṛta. They also explain on their website how they follow and promote a 'vedic way of life'. This phrase has become ubiquitous within the marketing strategies of many yoga gurus and organisations. It is in my process of trying to understand what constitutes a '21st century Vedic way of life' that I ask these questions. Like you suggest, it is very complicated, and while a traditionalist approach of a broader ritualist framework might work, I believe my questions are still valid. Moreover, I find the framework you suggest makes this process even more intriguing, even if you suggest on the one hand that it is 'complicated' and than, on the other hand, as in your last email suggest it is quite 'simple' (ie traditionalism), and that because I'm a naive outsider to the tradition I just don't see it. At least I think that is what you are suggesting? There are politico-religious influences that also come into play that have seemingly nothing to do with ritual traditionalism and more to do with the performance of a particular identity that incorporates aspects of a re-imagined Vedic past as a way to gain moral, cultural and political leverage, both domestically and internationally.
At the moment I am trying to find the particular 'scriptural commandments' that suggest conducting fire ceremonies, etc is obligatory, and understand how these commandments and the practices still matter today to some people, and how identities and meanings accrete around such floating signifiers as 'vedic'. I am interested in what impels and motivates people to want to follow any particular practice or lifestyle?
My observations and interviews with a variety of participants indicates that it is generally an aesthetic quality and, ultimately, the experience of śāntarasa that people equate with experiencing through attending yajñas (in this one ashram at least). While the discussions do not include specific mention of rasas or rasavāda per se, they do include mentioning that they feel more 'peaceful' as a result, and that the various 'elements' are balanced, etc., and that this is a good thing for the individual, community, nation (particularly a Hindu rāṣṭra), and world. However, I feel this is more an internalisation of the community's orthopraxis and discourse, which is then re-articulated as a strategy to gain acceptance and legitimacy as a potential insider within this paramparā. I do not doubt the subjective experiences of the participants. Ultimately, it is the emic perspective I aim to privilege and discuss.
Interestingly, the Vedic theology of debt, ie paying off the actions of the ancestors through performing ceremonies, studying, initiation, etc is never mentioned by the videśi practitioners. It is also hardly ever mentioned by the deśi practitioners either, unless, perhaps they are trained in karmakāṇḍa.
I guess, ultimately, my assertion is that no matter how 'Vedic' one says their practice/lifestyle is, even if it includes yajñas, etc, it is more 'neo-Hindu' than truly 'Vedic'. I think this extends throughout the ontological, epistemological and soteriological realms as well. Therefore, I am trying to get a much better picture of what a 'Vedic way of life' may have encapsulated through understanding better the foundational texts and comparing that with the lived experiences of people today who assert their 'Vedic way of life' is more authentic than the yoga school/ashram down the street.
I look at this domain where gurus offer information in 'spiritual packages' through e-darśan, F2F darśan in satsaṅga, etc for 'seekers' today as a 'tidal zone of persuasion'. There are implicit market forces that prevent certain discourses and practices from being mentioned or promoted because they might not be consumed if it is too opaque and culturally/temporally contingent Vedic injunctions. People might lose interest quicker than expected, especially if their ideas of a 'Vedic lifestyle' do not match with those of the consumers of this lifestyle. But, if the message is too watered down then it loses its 'authenticity'. For instance, any feminist or queer critique of a Vedic theology might create problems for the contemporary 'universalist' assertions often promoted.
The bhakti tradition is a veritable springboard for modern postural yoga practitioners to enter this 'way of life' and extend their 'yoga practice' beyond āsana/prāṇāyāma + samyama. But as we know, the bhakti tradition is a much later development, and yet it is often included in marketing as a central component of a 'Vedic lifestyle'. Increasingly, I see the inclusion of kīrtana as becoming emblematic of a more 'authentic' and 'wholesome' yoga practice. In Sydney, there are several yoga studios which market their brand of yoga by also offering kīrtana or 'yoga events' that include kīrtana. This strategy for creating distinction is a somewhat recent trend in the Australian yoga scene that of course only appeals to a certain kind of practitioner. Yet, I would argue that for some has become the measuring stick for how 'authentic' one's yoga practice can become. If we dare include Malhotra's 'U-turn Theory' into the discussion of cultural appropriation things become even more interesting. But I'm not that inspired by this theory.
Perhaps, I have said too much. I just wanted to say I really do appreciate this community and value the opportunity to exchange ideas and ask questions. I continue to learn so much from you.