Namaste

The statements, which are based on inference and not Vedas, that "Hence, it is clear that those who are not qualified to study the veda are indeed qualified to hear the vedic message through other means, i.e. the itihAsa/purAnas" and "Smritis, purANas and itihAs give the same knowledge of Shrutis in a way they can be understood and digested by common man" seem insulting to countless Hindus if you really look at it.

It is like saying "Vedas" (the learning of, quoting the Vedas, grammer and memorizing them) is only for "uncommon man" (viz smarter and higher birth then the riff raff) and histories such as the Ramayana are for the "common" (viz low birth, stupid people who cannot digest anything like the Vedas).

So the Ramayana is for the stupid people (viz a "way they can be understood and digested by common man" viz stupid people). It is like saying the Ramayana, which is the life of Rama, and the purpose of Ram "is for those other, low birth people who cannot understand, you know, the stupid low castes who are not able to digest the Vedas like us high caste smart people".

Sort of insulting to Lord Rama as well.

Can someone give me the exact and explicite quote from one of the four Vedas that explicitly states memorizing the Vedas and it's grammer and Sanskrit, is only birth based? Not some commentary that came millions of years after the Vedas from a modern saint of the last 500 years, but from the Vedas?

And when some commentary of some Saint is used, why is it the same four or so saints named, as if all Hindus follow them? Why isn't, for example, Lord Caitanya and His life and associates quoted for example. He doesn't count?

Om Namah Sivaya