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

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

First of all, it is an excellent post by Sri Jaladhar dealing with
opposition from multiple fronts with knowledgeable replies.

On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, rajaramvenk at gmail.com wrote:

We have to clearly distinguish between varna and jati.


No we don't.  A simple review of facts on the ground will show that to the
extent that varna even exists it is equivalent to jati and is based on
birth.

RV: I have repeatedly said that varna is by birth and that jati is an
indicator of varna. But they are not the same. If you dont distinguish
between them, then you start on a wrong premise or have to state why. As
you know, historically jatis have changed varna. Paraya, Ezhava, Kayastha,
Kumbi, Ahom etc. striking examples. If they are the same, then there is no
question of such as hrough change. We cannot regard these as mere historic
events. We see the seven generation rule in Manu Smrti for change of varna
through matrimony.

 At the time of creation, there were four varnas and hence four jatis. But
due to rise of desire people gave up varnashrama dharma leading to the
creation of the fifth class who fell out side the created four. Also, the
inter-mingling between varnas created new jatis, which belonged to one of
four varnas or the fifth.


This is the theory propounded by the shastras and like the various theories
of creation mentioned therein it is completely divorced from reality.  Just
as the creation theories merely explain why there is something rather than
nothing and should not be taken as the basis of science etc., the
varnasankara explains why there are a multiplicity of jatis but in practice
it is useless to try and trace any jati to a combination of varnas.

RV: The theory propounded by the sastras are valid in the relative
reality. If you say it is not so, then you have to explain why.

And in the shruti itself jatis that do not clearly belong to a particular
varna are described.  The cannonical example is the rathakara who has the
adhikara for agnyAdhAna. (establishment of the fires.) during the
varshartu.  This case is discussed in Mimamsa sutras 6.1.44-50.

RV: I like this part of your post because it is done with proper references
though I disagree with your interpretation. You are right that mimamsakas
categorise rathakaras as not belonging to any one of the four varnas. I
will quickly come to whether it conflicts the four varna system that
Ishwara claims to have created. Before we go there, I would like to draw
your attention to the fact that the sastras gives rathakaras, who are not
brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya or sudra, right to maintain fire during rainy
season allocating spring, summer and autumn to brahmana, kshatriya and
vaishya. It directly conflicts the position that an a-Varni (neither dwija
nor sudra) cannot have right to any vaidhika karma. And the general
position of those who think that they represent the traditional view that
only pure brahmanas, ksahtriyas and vaishyas have the right to yajnas.
While sastras categorically prohibit right to yajnas in the case of the
sudras, it opens some of the doors to those who are neither dwijas nor
sudras. But does the existence of rathakaras punch a hole in to the four
varna system that the Lord says He created? NO. Varna is the characteristic
of the sukshuma sarira. It is the proportional predominance of the three
gunas in an individual which leads to his specific qualities such as
disposition towards cleanliness, passion, ignorance etc. Let say a pure
brahmana has sattva, rajas and tamas in the ratio of 80:10:10. For
kshatriya it is 10:80:10, for vaishya it is 10:45:45 and for sudra it is
10:10:80. We can assume any ratio and hence the error in the assumption of
the proportion has no result in our conclusion. If a brahmana marries a
kshatriya, assuming equal influence of both parents on the occurence of the
gunas in the offspring unlike in the passage of genes where the gene is
chosen from one of the parents, the offspring will have sattva, rajas and
tamas in the ratio of 45:45:10. It is less like a brahmana or kshatriya and
not like a vaishya. Such a person born as a result of varnasankara cannot
be considered as belonging to any one of the dwija classes. But is it valid
to assume that gunas are passed in equal proportion by both parents? Let us
apply Manu's seven generation rule to validdate this assumption. If our
assumption is valid, if the offsprings marry in to brahmana community for
seven generations they shouldd have the same proportion of three gunas like
a pure brahmana (80:10:10). You will find that it is true irrespective of
the proportion of three gunas you assume for a pure brahmana! In the second
generation it will be (63:28:10), in the third generation it will be
(71:19: 10), in the third (76: 14:10), in the fourth (78:12:10), in the
fifth (79:11:10), in the sixth (80:11:10) and in the seventh generation it
will be (80:10:10)! You can verify it without rounding off also, which I
did only for better readability. A rathakara is a born to the offspring
of a kshatriya and sudra with the offspring of a vaishya and a sudra. So,
his guna ratio will be average of parent 1 (10:45:45) and parent 2
(25:25:50), which will be (17.50:35:47.50).  He has more sattva but also
more tamas than a vaishya and less rajas. So, he is on a lower level than a
vaishya in terms of preferable gunas but higher than a sudra. This entitles
him to the rites. So, we see that the catur varna system created by the
Lord is not only universal but also accommodates the play of kama that
leads to creation of new jatis so that one can fairly determine the rights
of the individual. This is unlike the other religions which impose rigid
rules on all without considering the nature of their sthula and sukshuma
sariras.

The guna theory falls flat when you actually observe the diversity of
behavior amongst individual people and to impute gunas to a whole group is
incredibly offensive.  Do you mean to tell me that the 800 million+ Hindus
do not wear yajnopavit, have never worn it and have no intention of wearing
it are automatically tamasika i.e. characterized by sloth and ignorance?

RV: Yes. If they are genuine sudras, they will be characterised by tamas. I
dont see how it is offensive as I, a brahmana, have to not only offer
waters for the satisfaction of Indra, Indrani, Rishis etc. but also sudras
(sudras trpyantu). The same Lord, who is within me, is in them also. But
just as our bodies have a different nature, so does our minds (sukshuma
sariras).

Leaving aside whether Vaishyas, Shudras, and women are born in "sinful"
wombs, why mention wombs at all if varna is to be astrologically determined
by gunas?  Because the womb is where one is _born_ from thats why.

RV: I did not say that parentage is insignificant. I have repeatedly
asserted the value of jati in determining varna. I have just pointed out
that jatis have changed varna. This has been allowed by none other than
Manu himself. So, the position that jati alone will determine varna is
incorrect. Ahoms who are considered brahmanas today were sudras earlier.
Yazhavas who are considered sudras today were kshatriyas (valangai senai)
earlier. The Swedish person who is unfortunately at the centre of this
discussion did not come from some unknown source. He also came out of the
offsprings of the first created beings mentioned in purusha suktam. He has
birth in a "sinful womb", worshippable by me for producing one committed to
veda dharma, as a result of the fact that his jati moved out of the fold of
dharma.

The Smarta theory makes more sense of shastra, is more in line with actual
historical practice and is less offensive.  Shankaracharya says it is not a
particular activity but the way the activity is performed that is
important.  Whenever anyone does their svadharma with bhakti, and vairagya
it leads to jnana the supreme goal.  Not by imitating a Brahmana.  In fact
he specifically gives the example from the Mahabharata of Dharmavyadha who
despite being a hunter and butcher of meat is superior in attainment to the
Brahmana Kaushika because he practices his svadharma and has mastered his
senses whereas the latter has not.

RV: I think it is your theory. I asked why Sringeri Acharya gave award to
Swami Dayananda, if he grossly violated dharma and say same-minded.

Out of the 423 rishis in the vedic anukramani, 23 are women.


LOL, one can of worms is not enough for you right? :-)

  Interesting there is no apastriadhikarana

Why would there need to be?  That women also have no Vedadhikara is known
from Shruti and Smrti and in that sense they are shUdravat.  Thus what has
been said for the Shudras applies mutatis mutandis.  It is the same reason
that while the Brahmasutras have extensive refutations of Samkhya, there is
little notice of Shaivaism or Vaishnavism.  The Shaiva and Vaishnava agamas
philosophically only teach a modified variety of Samkhya so whatever has
already been said applies to them also and doesn't need to be repeated.

and Sita is said to have had upanayanam


No She isn't.  There is one reference in Ramayana to Hanuman encountering
Her alone in the grove in Lanka as She offers arghya.  The reform
fantasists spin this into She was practicing Sandhyavandana and therefore I
suppose that She had Upanayana.  But that is a mighty slender thread to
latch on.

and this practice was present as recently as Gupta period as archaelogical
evidences reveal.


Archaeological evidence which you fail to cite.  I find it hard to believe.
 If there ever was a time when women had upanayana it had passed long
before the Guptas.

RV: If you go to Chennai, please let me know. Sri V.S. Sundaram (Retd. IAS)
has the evidence. I have checked it with my own eyes. By your logic, there
are no brahmana women and I dont have to worry about getting my daughter
married off as a kanya to protect her varna status.