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

[Ajit Krishnan]

namaste

> Vishwamitra and Veetahavya were Kshatriyas who became Brahmins, but reading the puraanas, etc; reveals these were extra-ordinary cases and also , if one could call it, converted by rishis.



Veetahavya is an interesting example of the "kevala" lineages. The
entire "kevala angirasa" and "kevala bhargava" family trees are
kshatriya branches that were absorbed into the brAhmaNa fold through
marriage.

Jaldhar (and other who have a grasp of the history at play) -- can you
please share your understanding of these events?

Years ago, there was a wonderful set of images that showed the history
of the brAhmaNa lineages (on the defunct "iyer heritage site"),
"weirdnesses" and all. If anyone has a cached version of those images,
can you please share?


sasneham,

   ajit



On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pranam,
>
> 1.Yagnopaveeta is given during upanayana samskara, which for trivarnika males by birth at specific ages. Guna may not be known at a young age. In addition how do we really know the inner gunas of someone ? Upanayna samskara is based on gunas of individual. Manu Smriti tells of appropriate ages for upanayna. Based on that the child of a White Man is not eligible.
>
> 2.Based on what Sri Vidyasankar stated regarding exceptions for "contemporary Jabala and Gautama".
> a.Who decides or who judges who can be the exception ?
> b.Arya Samaj, Gayatri Pariwar, ISCKON, to name a few give yagnopaveeta to an-adhikaris; which is clearly against shastras.
> c.Also, I think sometime back on this list, it was posted that Adi Shankara mentions in his Bramha Sutra Bhashya that Jabala's both parents are Brahmins.
> d.Vishwamitra and Veetahavya were Kshatriyas who became Brahmins, but reading the puraanas, etc; reveals these were extra-ordinary cases and also , if one could call it, converted by rishis. (FYI, I am a descendant of both via maternal and paternal side respectively.)
> e.We also see by puranic history that Aggarwals conveted from Kshatriya to Vaishya varna as did Maheshwaris of Rajasthan. The former by Goddess Laxmi and the Latter by Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati.
> f.I have heard also if one parent is a Shudra, then the progeny are not eligible for upanayana; hence those with fathers outside of chaturvarna would not be eligible.
> g.The exceptions as seen in Puraanas were of extra-ordinary circumstances and involved "super-human" events and "were converted" by God,Devtas, or Rishis".
> h.The officiating purohits conducted the upanayna of a boy whose father is Caucasian; however it is against shastras. I'm sure they know more about dharma than I do; however I don't think they can dharmically grant an exception. (Now legally and socially they can conduct the upanayana).
>
> Ravi Chandrasekhara
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: "rajaramvenk at gmail.com" <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> To: ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??
>
> Dear Sri Ravi,
>
> In law, we have to state which specific code is violated by the accused before he is convicted. You need to say which specific dharma sastra is violated in giving yajnopavita to a white man who has gunas of one of the three varnas.
>
> There are very wide genetic variations among dwijas.
>
> Best Regards
> Rajaram Venkataramani
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula at yahoo.com>
> Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:13:10
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Reply-To: ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula at yahoo.com>,
>     A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>     <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??
>
> Dear all,
>
> Analyzing dharma seems very confusing and complex. How do we know what is correct ? With regards to strictness; is taking food in non-madi/achara form the same as or"as worse" as giving yagnopaveeta to a person whose father is European and mother a Brahmin ? Where do we draw the line ?
>
> Ravi Chandrasekhara
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
> To: Advaita List <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??
>
>
>
>> If there are cases of exceptions with regards to upanayana, then why don't
>> we have even a single shudra anywhere in india who is initiated? If learned
>> brahmanas support the view of exception, then i feel that shudras have been
>> discriminated from a very long time since they don't seem to know about
>> this rule of exception.
>
> The question about exception and SUdra-s is ill-posed. There are only two
> possibilities: either there are exceptions or there are none at all. In either
> case, an exception is not a rule in itself. The rule applies to most cases
> that satisfy general criteria. An exception is made only when some special
> and specific circumstance or attribute dictates that the general rule be set
> aside.
>
> The "conservative" view is that the rules are all totally rigid and admit of
> no exceptions whatsoever. The "liberal" view is that the rules exist, but
> exceptions also can be made by appropriate authorities in appropriate
> instances. However, exceptions, by their very nature, are small in number
> and pertain to specific individuals, not for whole groups of poeple. If an
> exception was made in the past for a specific individual from a SUdra
> grouping, then it follows that he as well as his descendants gave up their
> SUdra classification and changed to another varNa a long time ago. By
> definition, therefore, you will not see a SUdra who is initiated (I assume
> you mean the upanayana saMskAra)!
>
> Sri Lalitalalita is correct that upanishad stories are AkhyAyikas meant for
> instruction and should not be taken historically. My reference to the story
> of satyakAma jAbAla was also for a specific illustrative purpose, not to
> argue for the historicity of the upanishadic account.
>
> My illustrative purpse is this - if there is someone like satyakAma jAbAla
> today, most of those who are anxious about dharma would hold his
> unknown parentage against him. But there could also be someone like
> a gautama hAridrumata today who decides otherwise, based on some
> quality, like truthfulness. If such a thing happens, then the majority do
> have a right to find out from the hypothetical gautama why he did what
> he did in accepting the hypothetical satyakAma as a disciple. But nobody
> has the right to tell the hypothetical satyakAma to act other than what
> his own guru has advised. The most that others can do is to refuse to
> intermarry with him and his family and to refuse to eat a meal together
> with him - things like that, which indicate a level of social ostracism, to
> mark their displeasure.
>
> Now, replace satyakAma with a non-Indian first name, unknown parentage
> with European/American/African/Australian parentage and gautama with
> the name of a contemporary brAhmaNa guru who accepts this person
> and initiates him. I hope my argument is clear. Now, if any of us on this
> list wants to be very strict about rules and vehement about allowing no
> exceptions, then the first thing that person and his family should do is to
> give up eating at restaurants and office cafetaria with work colleagues
> and friends who are not brAhmaNa-s. The second thing to do would be
> to refuse to attend and recognize any interreligious wedding, even if it
> involves close family members and friends. Is this going to be possible?
> Living in the United States, I know of very observant brAhmaNa families
> whose sons-in-law or daughters-in-law are of European extraction and
> the wedding is conducted as per vaidika rites, complete with pANigrahaNa,
> saptapadI and lAja homa. I know of cases where the son of an Indian
> brAhmaNa mother and American father has been given the yajnopavIta
> with the maternal grandfather doing the brahmopadeSa. And in such
> rituals in this country, the priests who officiate are well qualified and
> trained from some of the best and most orthodox institutions in India.
>
> In effect, I am drawing attention to the fact that brAhmaNa society has
> changed so much and so rapidly, we can ill-afford to tell the contemporary
> satyakAma jAbAla and gautama hAridrumata what they should do or not
> do for the sake of dharma. Something about glass houses and stones
> comes to mind, as also the egend where Jesus said only he who has never
> sinned should cast the first stone. (I believe this is the first time I quote
> Christ on this list, but somehow it oddly seems appropriate here.)
>
> The historical argument I made was separate, by citing the example of the
> Maratha rulers of south India. Were they SUdra or kshatriya? If the former,
> they had no upanayana adhikAra and could not be crowned kings. If the
> latter, they did have adhikAra and could be made kings. As I mentioned,
> in Maharashtra, there was quite some controversy about it and in Tamil
> Nadu, there wasn't any. In both places, the end result was that Marathas
> were crowned kings. And it is also obvious why such controversies came
> up in the first place, if you think about the ground realities of monarchies
> and the feudal societies over which they ruled. Population shifts between
> SUdra-s and kshatriya-s would have been very common, but nobody really
> wants to talk about it. Not every child born in a king's harem was born to
> the king. Not every woman in a king's harem was a kshatriya princess.
> And it is not as if only a son of a kshatriya princess became king in every
> kingdom throughout Indian history.
>
> And if you read the accounts of caste status compiled within the last two
> centuries, you will see that almost every jAti that is considered SUdra
> has actually claimed descent from kshatriya-s and said they had lost their
> status because of historical events. e.g. More than a 1000 years ago, the
> Pandyas in Tamil Nadu lost power and today there are many jAti-s that
> claim descent from them. Throughout northern India, are the various
> Yadavs SUdra or kshatriya? At different times, different answers were
> given. And today, when there are no longer any kings and we all live in
> elective democracies, it is easy to overlook the importance of the varNa
> called kshatriya for deciding issues about dharma and to pretend as if
> it is all about brAhmaNa and non-brAhmaNa. It isn't, for the simple
> reason that the latter cannot all be lumped together. For that matter,
> even brAhmaNa communities cannot all be grouped together.
>
> Regards,
> Vidyasankar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org