[Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??
gopal.gopinath at gmail.com
Wed Jun 27 06:16:44 CDT 2012
Dear Shri Lalitaalaalitah,
You have my Mother's name and my pranams to you starting from there.
I have benefited much from your blogs, postings in different lists and also
thru personal emails. Thanks.
I do not agree with you on some of the points mentioned in your mail.
>whether the person converting hindu is doing that according to shAstra-s
I believe the shastras or the interpretation of shastras by the tatkaleen
aachaaryas have not been
so fixed and rigorous as it is thought to be. (my statements below may be
applied here too)
>If not why is he doing that ? Will he be benefited by doing karma and
>upAsanA according to shAstra-s ? Has he faith in shAstras or not ? If yes,
> why isn't he accepting that conversion is not applicable ? If he has no
>faith in shAstra-s, then why is he converting to hindu ? And why is he
>following rules laid by a less-knowing person ? Was the person who made or
>suggested a new system able to view alaukika-things ? If not, why he did
>that ? etc.
If there had not been conversions (inter varna, inter- ethnicity)
officially accepted all along for the last 6000 years or so, there would
not have been any significant genetic differences among the brahmanas of
our Bharath varsha. This situation is very much unlike Ashkanezi Jews
genetics. There has been found no single genetic stock to call as
rishi-clan or brahmana-clan. Maybe among some gothra-s one could expect a
lesser degree of variations arising out of multi-stock lineages. How would
you explain such variations among brahmanas in Indian sub-continent with
out conversions from various sources? One would argue that (for the sake
of argument) since (sarcastically speaking) studying vedas has always
been lucrative and well compensated that (just like the high schoolers
flocking to IT courses in college) batches and batches of people went to a
corner of the village or town, without a Guru who has studied vedas and
shastraas, tied 3 or 6 strings around them and declared themselves to be
"of that class fit for veda adhyayana?" Even IF this is feasible, to
generalize this over 2000 years would border on ridiculousness.
Even 1000 years back, the life of Sri Ramanuja talks about conversions. How
could one explain it without showing even a little disrespect to that yuga
I am not even going to mention Satyakama Jabala as it has been used for all
the wrong purposes.
I read that Sriramji has some other examples as few others too.
My question is where were your "rules with firm bases" when these changes
were happening in the flow of history? Why these changes were not stopped
by the people who were supposedly upholding the very rules? Has these hurt
our vedopanishats more than other reasons? Is an yavana advaitin less a
jnani than a vadhoola gothra (for example) panditha?
I am also not going to ask the question what makes one eligible learn
shastras? what makes one fit to understand the meaning of shastras (at
least at the level of mukya upanishads, Geeta)? what makes one fit to
understand the meaning of shastras, say upanishads and Geeta, live by the
tenets, attain enlightenment or go on the way towards that and even teach
Please note the questions here: i have deliberately used the words
"eligible" and "fit". If , according to you, both are synonymous, then
the lives of saints ---- like some alwars, many nayanmars, kabir, many
other sanths, a multitude of siddhars, siddhanthin like Ramalinga vallalar,
yogin like Mother, many disciples of Ramakrishna paramahamsa, Sivananda,
para yogins belonging to Shringeri and Kanchi paramparas of 20th century
----- all become a lie.
If you consider the words "eligible" and "fit" are not synonymous, we do
not have anything to discuss. While the "eligibility" people would be
constantly remain sensitive about maintaining the order of things, "fit"
people would still be wanting to learn, to practice and to know whether or
not they are considered to be "eligible".
The underlying question here is: Are the "eligibility" and "fitness"
pre-exist (by birth as some orthodox interepretations of the shaastraas),
acquired in one janma (by self-discipline), recognized by **suitable**
aachaaryas (Guru Mukha as in the case of Sri Shivashankar and other cited
in this thread), self-declared or spontaneously blossoming in the
One would find examples in every generation (~20-25 years) for all these
Thus the spectrum to study and practice Hindu dharma in its most
traditional sense has been much wider, broader than one would argue based
on linear interpretations on shastras.
I bow to the transcendental vision of that Rig vedic rishi who stood
(probably ;-)) on the banks of Saraswathi and wished:
bhadra kratavo yantu vishwata:....... Seems to me that on the way from
Saraswathi to brahmaputra or thames or Colarado rivers we have lost that
hridaya of the rishi to take in good things (and people) from all
I will stop emailing on this hereafter to avoid adding to the din. My
sincere pranaams to you and your services to our Dharma.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list