[Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??

Jaldhar H. Vyas jaldhar at braincells.com
Wed Jul 11 15:59:35 CDT 2012

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Gopal wrote:

> 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.

I also believe this albeit for different reasons.  I submit to you the 
reformist mania for making Brahmanas out of anyone is a symptom of a rigid 
and uninformed view of the shastras.

> 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.

>From rape to adultery there are other factors than conversion that can 
lead to genetic admixture.  But you have, perhaps inadvertently, brought 
up a valuable insight.  In pre-modern times most "conversions" happen at a 
group level -- an entire family or tribe change their affiliation at the 
same time.  This is why there are so many jatis with ambiguous varna 

But here we are considering a different situation -- an individual 
changing his ideology.

>  This situation is very much unlike Ashkanezi Jews
> genetics.

You are comparing apples and pears.  The Ashkenazim are one jati of Jews. 
Overall within the spectrum of Jewish ethnicity there is just as much 
genetic variation as there is amongst Brahmanas or Hindus in general. 
Conversely specific Brahmana jatis such e.g. Kashmiri Pandits are as 
genetically distinct as Ashkenazi Jews.  And overall, a Tamil Brahmana has 
more in common genetically with a UP Brahmana than a Tamil Shudra.  See 
here:  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/03/genetics-as-the-myth-buster-indian-edition/

> 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?

The current theory as summarized here:

is that the modern Indian population is made of two distinguishable 
genetic bases which entered India from the northwest, Ancestral South 
Indians and later Ancestral North Indians.  Nearly all Modern Indians are 
an admixture of these two types. (The terms Aryan and Dravidian are not 
used as they are mostly cultural/political labels.  Anyway the purest 
"South Indians" are the Andaman & Nicobar Islanders who look nothing like 
Naicker or Karunanidhi.  Also note neither of these migrations can 
legitimately be called "invasions.")

And to answer your question it appears that those migrations had finished 
9000 years ago.  So the variation was there right from prehistory.

> 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
> maha purusha?

Are you referring to the dantakatha that Ramanuja "created" Brahmanas? 
This canard appears to have started in the 19th century.  (Vivekananda 
popularized it but did not originate it I think.)  Shrivaishnava scholars 
such as the late Rangapriya Swami deny it.  If you read the 
apashudradhikarana in the Shribhashya, it clearly shows that Ramanujas 
view on Vedadhikara was exactly the same as Shankaracharya.  See

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48131.htm and onwards.

> My question is where were your "rules with firm bases" when these changes
> were happening in the flow of history?

I hope I have adequately shown to you that they were not "happening in the 
flow of history."

> Is an yavana advaitin less  a
> jnani than a vadhoola gothra (for example) panditha?

No.  But the question of upanayana and sandhya etc. is one of karma which 
has nothing to do with jnana.

> 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
> individuals?

Eligibility and fitness for what?  Adhikara is different for karma and 

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list