claudiouk wrote: Is it possible to argue the case for a > VEDIC Democracy? > There is a case to be made for 'Vedic Democracy', but it all depends on what you mean by 'Vedic'.
>From what I've read, there never was a 'Vedic Age' - that's just part of pre-historic Indian mythology. The only evidence we have that would tell us anything about the culture and society in India's remote past, are the 'sutras' of the historical Buddha - Shakya the Muni. According to Buddha, the 'veda' means 'knowledge', that is, 'gnosis'; the 'dharma' is action and reaction that produces 'karma'; and 'brahmin' means a noble person who can transcend the material world. The Buddha's teaching consists of transcendental knowledge - the entire Buddha's doctrine could be summed up by saying 'go to the other shore'. In Buddha's time, the societies in northern India were sometimes 'republican' in nature - there was voting in councils of elders. But there probably never has been a 'pure' democracy. Even in the United States we don't support direct voting - we have a representative democracy. But even in the U.S. not too long ago we supported slavery. Can you believe that? Yet, in ancient India slavery was unknown. So, in fact, the Marshy's support for ancient Indian government seems pretty wise, since the government of India in the time of the Buddha, and later Ashoka, seems to be simply 'enligtened' compared to the current U.S. system of discrimination based on skin color. So, the case is that 'vedic society' is a myth. But there is ample evidence that shows Northern India to be both republican, democratic, gnostic, and noble - that is, true 'aryan'. According to the Buddha, anyone who aspires to the transcendetal state, is a 'noble' person. Apparently the historical Buddha didn't have a problem with the Indian system of 'division of labor', nor did he object to true vedic principles or try to meddle in other people's religion like we do here in the U.S.
