> The satisfaction among Vīraśaivas that the court has acknowledged their vedādhikāra can be interpreted in more than one way. The aforementioned book by Naṃjuṃḍārādhya goes into theological details like the validity of iṣṭaliṃgapūje vs. sthāvaraliṃgapūje (i.e., 'our practices are just as good as brahmin practices!').
" 'our practices are just as good as brahmin practices!')" itself shows that the people who fought are not Brahmins. What they fought for and got was Vedaadhikaara. Similar is the situation in the places in Telangana I mentioned. Those from whom, I said, I heard Veda-recitations were not Brahmins.
When I say these modern groups 'learn' , it does not mean they learn from Brahmin Vedaadhyaapakas. They create they own lineage of gurusishyparampara irrespective of whether the teacher is a Brahmin or not.
> Today, for something to be 'good' in India, it need not be 'Brahmin' nor 'Vedic'.
> Agreed (cf. my previous statement). But then why is there this proliferation of 'Vedic' this-and-that-and-the-other? Even if there are modernistic fringe groups (around Sri Aurobindo etc.) that ignore the old rules (Aurobindo indeed wrote on the Vedas, although he was a kāyastha, not a brāhmaṇa), the association of vaidikatva with brāhmaṇatva and social prestige seems beyond debate.
The English word 'Vedic' being used as a qualifier can happen only in the English knowing particularly western circles of some 'Hinduism' related activities. There is so much happening out there beyond these where this word or the entities qualified by it do not matter at all. Not looking at that bigger picture is the source of this over-focus on this non-issue.
"the association of vaidikatva with brāhmaṇatva and social prestige seems beyond debate."
is no argument. It is just a restatement of a claim to which sufficient counter evidences have been provided.
Study of Indian society has gone more intricate and more nuanced than this old obsolete understanding of the early modern studies.
