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

Kathirasan K brahmasatyam at gmail.com
Wed Jun 27 01:09:06 CDT 2012

Namaste Lalitalalitaji,

While I do not disagree with your distinction between traditionalists and
the reformists, I beg to differ in the choice of words used based on the
characteristics you have mentioned for each of them. I would say that the
traditionalists you are talking are more the 'conservatives' while the
reformists are 'evolutionaries'.

Personally, I wish that these conservatives don't pick and choose what
suits their cause and leave out scriptural injunctions that they themselves
do not follow. This is also hypocrisy in one form. One good example will be
the few 'conservative' sannyasis of today who despite knowing the rules of
sannyasa, don't wish to follow it to the letter. But they would be quick to
point out how everyone else is not following scriptural injunctions.

I personally resonate with the evolutionaries who are endowed with the
'sukshma buddhi' to bring about a change in the social fabric of the
vaidikas or Hindus. I would illustrate the evolution of Hinduism from
allowing a polygamous marriage to a monogamous one as also part of the
evolution I am talking about.


On 27 June 2012 13:35, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> First of all thank you for a balanced reply.
> Read further .... below....
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:19 AM, S L Shivashankar
> <slshivashankar at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > And how to check whether the guru "knows enough about shAstra-s and is
> pure
> > enough to stand steadfast in truth"? I guess this is a problem we all
> have
> > to encounter, regardless of sampradaya or background. The inner qualities
> > mentioned in Bhagavadgita chapter XIII are qualities that should be
> present
> > in one´s guru.
> >
> You have correctly pointed this. That's why, because of this specific
> limitation of people, I said that you must follow whatever you are doing
> with faith and respect.
> While doing this, I also advised to study more to know more to be clear in
> future interactions.
> > KAma certainly leads the judgement astray and hence distort the
> > interpretation of shastras, that´s true. But should we really make claims
> > that opinions different from our own are due to kAma, while our own
> > interpretations are free from such defects?
> That depends on study of scriptures and truthfulness of aspirant. Sticking
> to scriptures in maximum extent is advisable to know these things.
> On personal level, it all depends on you and your studies, etc.
> You have right to put your view while giving chance to traditionals at the
> same time. Then start thinking.
> > There´s always an element of
> > preconceptions and views coloured by time and context, also when trying
> to
> > understand such things as dharma shastras. If not, why do traditional
> > pandits end up with different interpretations?
> Actually, vaidika-s, i.e. sanAtanI-s, hold that birth determines jAti. And
> those who have specific jAti are allowed to get upanayana, gAyatrI and veda
> at specific time. So, I don't see anything for outsiders in traditional
> view.
> In view of reformists, who are mixing their wish, karma determines it. And
> in that way you are allowed to take these. These are non-traditionals.
> So, traditionals have no difference on these issues.
> Who to decide who´s
> > interpretation is a complete and fully objective reflection of what the
> > shastras really says?
> You.
> Because it's you life and you will be affected by it.
> And we traditionalist decide it for you and us to save you and us from
> going away from scriptures.
> > Of course, a kAma-free interpretation (as far as that
> > is possible) should be strived for.
> >
> This is not enough. Proper study is needed very much.
> > > > Do you think that Dayananda would have got such an award if the
> > Jagadguru
> > > > and the Sringeri Matha thought that Dayananda and his disciples where
> > > > heavily violating dharma?
> > >
> > >
> > > It is now a custom to ignore violations of shAstra-s by insiders of
> > > hinduism, because in a way or other they are helping hindu community,
> > > either by teaching world about us or by bringing money, etc.
> > > Checking violators is now a dangerous thing and in many ways
> impractical.
> > > It needs enough courage too.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Does this imply that you may consider the Sringeri Jagadguru and the
> > Sringeri Matha such "insiders" who "ignore violations of ShAstra-s"?
> >
> It means many things.
> First, they are not approving every thing of dayAnanda. So, they are not
> erring.
> Secondly, they are not keeping away from such people. So, they are
> supporting wrong people in a way.
> Both way it goes.
> Once my friend told me that merely refraining from doing bad is not enough.
> You must keep away from bad people too. Otherwise, you are supporting bad
> people and hence deceiving those who are observing you to follow. Great
> People have bigger responsibility.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list