Hare Krsna!

[Jaskaran Singh]

Dear jaskaran ji
Sorry, I do not have any quote with me. My post wanted to convey that all these schools of Vedanta strictly preach birth based varna dharma. I learned it from 3 years of debating with knowledgeable members of these 3 sampradays. Manu smriti does contains violent and discriminatory verses for one community and all these schools adhere to Manu smriti to my knowledge.

That doesn't make sense though, as madhvAchArya was of the view that varNa-s are not hereditarily based, which pretty much goes against all dharmashAstras:

Regarding my comment on Sindh. It is not I who want to dictate which is part of Bharata or which is not. I was merely saying that Puranas and Smritis mention Sindh as part of Bharata.

Yes, but most Sindhi-s themselves do not consider it part of bhArata.

These books have already written so cannot be changed. Though in my personal opinion, Bhagwan can incarnate anywhere in the world. I strongly attest to feeling that all the worlds are my country.. Svadeso Bhuvanatrayam.

Why are you telling this to me? Shouldn't you tell this to H<heart>K, who said the following:
"There are three compulsory things which should be considered to be called as a hindu. 1) he should be born in bharatavarsha. 2)He should be born in bramhana ,kshatriya ,vaishya or shudra families. 3)he should be follower of veda or vedic scriptures."

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste ,singh.

I don't think any traditional sampradaya do not accept varna by birth. First thing I am not the follower of adi shankara. But I know that adi shankara was with varna by birth. If not, then post his writing wherein he has opposed varna by birth. First know that varna not by birth is a recent fad in this kaliyuga. No any scripture posits varna not by birth. About varna, you won't find too much references. Because it was followed perfectly. No one was against it. But kali yuga has changed everything. One can expect this, because this is a kaliyuga. Unfortunatelly ,day by day, more numbers of people are giving up the core teachings of varna dharma and have sticked to the varna not by birth.

In scriptures ,there are many supports of varna by birth. I have already posted one of them from bhagavar purana ;wherein it ia written that " bramhan, kshatriya and vaishya are very near to the supreme feet of vishnu by virtue of their birth

And critisizing of someone in order to disprove him doesn't work always.

Thank you.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste ,jaskarana.

Who said that madhawavharya is the absolute authority ? What you have posted is his interpretation or rather his views. Did he prove that with scriptural supports ?

If yes, post his commentry along with proper scriptural supports .It will be beneficial for all of us. That's it.

Hari krishna

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste ,singh.
I don't think any traditional sampradaya do not accept varna by birth. First thing I am not the follower of adi shankara. But I know that adi shankara was with varna by birth. If not, then post his writing wherein he has opposed varna by birth.

I never said that Adi sha~Nkara opposed varNa by birth, I said that madhva didn't agree with varNa by birth (but he certainly didn't force others to reject varNa by birth). Please read what I wrote more carefully.

First know that varna not by birth is a recent fad in this kaliyuga. No any scripture posits varna not by birth. About varna, you won't find too much references. Because it was followed perfectly. No one was against it. But kali yuga has changed everything. One can expect this, because this is a kaliyuga. Unfortunatelly ,day by day, more numbers of people are giving up the core teachings of varna dharma and have sticked to the varna not by birth.
In scriptures ,there are many supports of varna by birth. I have already posted one of them from bhagavar purana ;wherein it ia written that " bramhan, kshatriya and vaishya are very near to the supreme feet of vishnu by virtue of their birth

I never said I opposed varNa by birth, but I do oppose pouring molten tin down a shUdra's ear just because he listened to Vedic chants and I do not agree with your view that only dvija-s can worship shrI kR^iShNa properly (as if chanting harinAma is not a proper method, which we know from the shrImad bhAgavatam, is a ridiculous conclusion). I also disagree with your view that to be a "Hindu" you must be born in bhAratavarsha. Could you please show me which shAstra defines a Hindu in such a manner or even uses the word Hindu to refer to a religion?

And critisizing of someone in order to disprove him doesn't work always.
Thank you.

Yeah, and strawmanning another individual's argument doesn't work "always" either.

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste ,jaskarana.

Who said that madhawavharya is the absolute authority ? What you have posted is his interpretation or rather his views. Did he prove that with scriptural supports ?

If yes, post his commentry along with proper scriptural supports .It will be beneficial for all of us. That's it.

Hari krishna

praNAm,
Why do I need to provide scriptural support for a claim I never made? If you understood the context, you would know why I pasted that (it was because IshAvAsya said that madhva followers follow the manusmR^iti which to me didn't make sense, as madhva himself didn't believe in varNa by birth, which is contrary to the view espoused by the manusmR^iti).

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste, jaskarana.

You aked me about complex term hindu. For that you should read this thread :

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3462


Brihaspati Agama says :

himAlayaM samArabhya yAvadindu sarovaram |
taM devanirmitaM desha hindusthAnaM prachakShate ||

"Starting from Himalaya up to Indu waters is this God-created country Hindustan."

( It means hindu word is formed by joing 'hi' of himalaya and 'indu' of bindu waters and the residents of bharata are called as hindus)

• Parijat Haran Natak describes Hindu as:

hinasti tamasA pApAn daihikAn duShTamAnasAn |
hetibhiH shatruvarga cha sa hindurabhidhIyate ||

"Hindu is one who with penance washes one's sins and evil thoughts and with
arms destroys one's enemies."

• Madhava Digvijaya states:

oMkAramUlamantrADhya punarjanmadRuDhAshayaH |
gobhaktako bhAratagururhindurhisanadUShakaH ||

"One who meditates on Omkar as the primeal sound, believes in karma and reincarnation, has reverence for the cow, who is devoted to Bharat, and abhors evil, is deserving of being called Hindu.

• Vriddha Smriti defines Hindu as:

hiMsayA dUyate yashcha sadAcharaNatatpara |
vedagopratimAsevI sa hindumukhshabdabhAk ||

"One who abhors the mean and the ignoble, and is of noblebearing, who reveres the Veda, the cow, and the deity, is a Hindu."


From brihannaradi purana :

Himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
Hindusthanamiti qyatan hi antaraksha-rayogatah

"The country between Himalayas and Bindu Sarovar (Cape Commorin Sea) is Hindusthan derived by combining the first letter 'Hi' of Himalayas and the last compound letter 'ndu' of the word Bindu."

Other instances are cited in Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the Brihaspati Samhita:

Aaasindo sindhu paryantham yasyabharatha bhoomikah
Mathrubhuh pithrubhoochaiva sah vai hindurithismrithaah

"Whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Saptha Sindhu and the Indian Ocean as his motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu."

From VishNu Purana, 2.3.1:

Uttaram yat samudrasya, Himadreschaiva dakshinam |
Varsham tad Bharatam nama Bharati yatra santatih ||

"Bharat is the name of country situated to the north of the sea and south of the Himalayas and its progeny is known as Bharati.

Know that bharati and hindus are just alternative words to define people of sacred land bharata. Sometimes we use bharati term also

Thank you.

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste,
Seriously, do you honestly believe that only bhAratiya-s can be religiously Hindu when the only shAstra you have justifying Hindu as a religion are obscure ones like vR^iddha smR^iti and parijAta haraNa nAtaka (two scriptures which I've never heard of before), and that too copy-pasted from Saidevo's post? Wow, perhaps I should have said well-known scripture rather than "scripture" in general. Why am I to accept that these "scriptures" are reliable (as in, not interpolated) and not fraudulent; are they ever quoted elsewhere by any other text or referred to even indirectly?

[hinduism♥krishna]

Seriously, do you honestly believe that only bhAratiya-s can be religiously Hindu when the only shAstra you have justifying Hindu as a religion are obscure ones like vR^iddha smR^iti and parijAta nAtaka (two scriptures which I've never heard of before), and that too copy-pasted from Saidevo's post? Wow, perhaps I should have said well-known scripture rather than "scripture" in general. Why am I to accept that these "scriptures" are reliable (as in, not interpolated) and not fraudulent; are they ever quoted elsewhere by any other text or referred to even indirectly?

What about vishnu purana ? Isn't this well know ?

But know that there was not common usage of hindu in very ancient times.
In acient time, during the time of krishna, there were only hindus in bharata. There were no christian or muslims.

However after invasion of muslims, it was necessary to separate muslims from sacred followers of veda (hindus). So the sacred name came - hindu ,which was not being commonly used before.

Thank you.

[Jaskaran Singh]

What about vishnu purana ? Isn't this well know ?

Yes, but it doesn't use the term to refer to members of a certain religion.

But know that there was not common usage of hindu in very ancient times.
In acient time, during the time of krishna, there were only hindus in bharata. There were no christian or muslims.

However after invasion of muslims, it was necessary to separate muslims from sacred followers of veda (hindus). So the sacred name came - hindu ,which was not being commonly used before.

Thank you.

I'm sure there were bhAratiya-s back then who were not vedic as well, have you ever heard of the santhal people of parts of eastern India (a munda speaking AdivAsI group which worships the non-vedic deity bonga) or the vedda people of parts of shrI la~NkA who worship non-vedic deities like kande yakka? Also, nAstika bauddha-s would also classify as "Hindu" following your view that all bhAratiya-s living before Christian and Muslim arrival were "Hindus."

[isavasya]

Namaste ,singh.

First know that varna not by birth is a recent fad in this kaliyuga. No any scripture posits varna not by birth. About varna, you won't find too much references. Because it was followed perfectly. No one was against it.

Namaste HK

Varna is not by birth but by guna and Vyahvar (actions/deeds). Story from Shruti will prove that.

Proof from Chandogya Upanishad - Book 4, chapter 4 (verse 1-5)

“Now Satyakama Jabala spoke unto his mother Jabala and said ‘Mother, I shall go and lead the life of the Brahmacharin; tell me what is my gotra.’ But she answered him, ‘This I know not, my son, of what gotra thou art; resorting to many as a serving woman in my youth I got thee, therefore I know not of what gotra thou art. But Jabala is my name and Satyakama is thine, Satyakama Jabala therefore call thyself.’ So he came to Haridrumata the Gautama and said, ‘I would stay with my Lord as a Brahmacharin, let me therefore enter under thee.’ And he said to him, ‘My son, of what gotra art thou?’ But the other answered, ‘This, alas, I know not of what gotra I am; I asked my mother and she answered me, Resorting to many in my youth as a serving woman I got thee, therefore I know not of what gotra thou art, but Jabala is my name and Satyakama is thine; Satyakama Jabala therefore am I.’ And he said to him, ‘None who is not a Brahmin can be strong enough to say this; gather the firewood, my son, I will take thee under me, for thou didst not depart from the truth.’ follow as a herd,’ and he set the cows in motion and said, ‘Return not until they are a thousand.’ And he fared abroad with them during the years till they were a thousand.”

So HK, we see Rishi Gautama ask Gotra of satyakama, to which Satykama replied he had none. His mother was a maid servant serving many men in her youth and she didn't know with whom she had conceived satyakama. But what made Rishi gautama take Satyakama as his pupil brahmchari ? The dedication to truth. Which is what the quality of Brahmin should be.
You can see the various translation of above texts. Swami Nikhilananda or sri Aurobindo or anyone else. The fact cannot be disproved.

"There are three compulsory things which should be considered to be called as a hindu. 1) he should be born in bharatavarsha. 2)He should be born in bramhana ,kshatriya ,vaishya or shudra families. 3)he should be follower of veda or vedic scriptures."

HK ,

You do not make any sense here. Sanatan Dharma is not a religion, it is eternal Dharma which governs everything. One does chose to be Hindu but not Sanatan dharmi. Law of karma and vedas apply to all irrespective of whether he calls himself Sanatan Dharmi or not or not. Christians and Jews are not exempt from law of Karma. Let alone people born in other religions, even Rakchasa and Daitya are what you will call 'Hindu'. Yes they received boons from our Devtas by chanting their mantras. So yes they were what now a days people call Hindu. Not just people born of parents of one of or mixture of 4 jatis are Hindu. And please don't give references from Brihaspati Agama type texts. Anybody can write anything. The Pramana comes from authentic texts like Vedas and Upanishads.