Why only Vaishnava Sect??

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

I came across this today..word of Swami Vivekananda..View Expressed by Swami Vivekananda on Purification of Converted Hindus and Non Hindus.

What attracted my attention here is the last paragraph where it says:

C. Converted Hindus can adopt their earlier caste after purification and non-Hindus can become followers of ‘Vaishnav Sect’ after adopting Hindu Dharma

R : In which caste, such purified people should be taken?

V : Those, who were converted by force, will get their earlier caste when they come back to Hindu Dharma. Those, who are adopting Hindu Dharma for the first time, will have to be given a new caste which can be under ‘Vaishnav’ Sect. Marriages can take place amongst themselves (so as to avoid ‘Varna-sankar (cross-breeds)’) They can adopt Hindu names because there is Hindu identity and ‘chaitanya’ attached to it.-‘Prabuddha Bharat’ (April 1899)

I was wondering why did Swami Vivekananda suggest a Vaishnava sect and not any other sect?

And what Kalai would this new sect be called??



Full article below:



Views expressed by Swami Vivekananda about purification !





March 5, 2014
Phalgun Shuklapaksha 6, Kaliyug Varsha 5115

​

In 1899, a periodical called ‘Prabuddha Bharat’ had held discussions with Swami Vivekananda on converted Hindus and purification of original non-Hindus. Given below is a gist of clarifications made by Swami Vivekananda to the doubts raised by representative of ‘Prabuddha Bharat’.
A. Purification of converted Hindus is necessary

Representative (R) : Should converted be taken back in Hindu Dharma through purification ?
Swami Vivekananda (V) : Of course, purification of converted Hindus has to be done. If that is not done, population of Hindus will go on reducing. Farishta, an ancient Muslim historian says that population of Hindus was 60 crores when Muslims first came to India. Today (in 1899), it is only 20 crores. Most of the conversions were made by Muslims or Christians on the strength of sword. Today’s converted Hindus are descendents of the earlier converted Hindus; therefore, it is not right to drive them away. Those, who got converted by choice, can also be taken back in Hindu Dharma, if they so desire. Hindus who converted to other religions due to oppression need not be asked to take atonement while taking them back in Hindu Dharma.


B. Non-Hindus were accepted by Hindu Dharma, is history !

R : Those, who are originally non-Hindus, should they be purified i.e. taken as Hindus ?
V : In past, several non-Hindus have been accepted in Hindu Dharma. Many uncivilized gangs living on the border of this country have been accepted under Hindu Dharma. All Muslim foreign invaders like Shaka, Hunn, Kushan etc. have been accepted by Hindu Dharma. Such non-Hindus by blood should not be asked to take any atonement while adopting Hindu Dharma.

C. Converted Hindus can adopt their earlier caste after purification and non-Hindus can become followers of ‘Vaishnav Sect’ after adopting Hindu Dharma

R : In which caste, such purified people should be taken?
V : Those, who were converted by force, will get their earlier caste when they come back to Hindu Dharma. Those, who are adopting Hindu Dharma for the first time, will have to be given a new caste which can be under ‘Vaishnav’ Sect. Marriages can take place amongst themselves (so as to avoid ‘Varna-sankar (cross-breeds)’) They can adopt Hindu names because there is Hindu identity and ‘chaitanya’ attached to it.
-‘Prabuddha Bharat’ (April 1899)
Source : Dainik Sanatan Prabhat

 

[vikrama]

Historically the worship of Siva came into vogue only after Laghulisa preached his Pasupata Saivam around 4th century c.e. The worship of Vishnu was prevalent even before that.

Tholkappiam speaks about mayon (Vishnu) and not about Siva.
Of course it speaks about Murugan. But Murugan was not mentioned as the son of Siva at that time.

The powerful spread of Saivism embraced all the previous worships. All the previous gods were linked to Siva by way of some relationship. Thus Uma was made His wife. Murugan was His son. Vishnu- brother-in-law. Later when Vinayaka came on the scene, he was made the elder son of Siva.

Murugan was made the son of Siva only later and not in Tholkappiam period or Sangam period.
Only in Thirumurugaruppadai, which is considered to be a very late Sangam work, (some consider it to belong to 8th century c.e.) Murugan is referred to as the son of Siva.

It was to save the ancient preeminence of Vishnu that Ramanuja made Vaishnavism a different sect and preached his doctrine that Narayana is the supreme brahman. His predecessors in Vaishnavism did not differentiate between Siva and Vishnu. Vishnu is even described in Divya Pabandham to be wearing thiruneeru on his body. Siva was part of Vishnu's body or Vishnu was part of Siva's body.

Karaikal Ammaiyar says that thirumal occupied the right part of Siva's body. She cuts a joke- Uma has taken your left. maal has taken the other part. Where will you, Siva, wear sacred ash?

The thenkalai people were the original vishnu-worshippers of Tamilnadu. There was an immigration of a group of people from north. Some of them embraced vaishnavism and came to be known as vadakalai. This difference is found only in Tamilnadu.

 

[vaithehi]

hariyum sivanum onnu...ariyadavan vayile mannu

 

[vaithehi]

How can you say that tholkappiam...even nakkiran has fought with siva..that means siva is earlier because akatthian has seen siva..came to siva's marriage and also akatthiar has met muruga..therefore these are all earlier than tholkappiam

r.vaithehi

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

To understand Swamiji we have to understand the Times he lived in.


There are no Kalais in Bengal Vaishnavism. The Bengali Vaishnavites are mostly the followers of Chaitanya Maha Prabhu and Bhallabacharya.


Other than the Vaishnavites there are no sects in Bengal. The Sakthas have never considered themselves a separate sect. There are no Saivas. The vast majority are Smarthas who worship all the Gods/Goddessses.


Since Vaishnavites are the only sect, may be Swamiji mentioned them. But then he was a Brahmo Samaj follower.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

To understand Swamiji we have to understand the Times he lived in.


There are no Kalais in Bengal Vaishnavism. The Bengali Vaishnavites are mostly the followers of Chaitanya Maha Prabhu and Bhallabacharya.


Other than the Vaishnavites there are no sects in Bengal. The Sakthas have never considered themselves a separate sect. There are no Saivas. The vast majority are Smarthas who worship all the Gods/Goddessses.


Since Vaishnavites are the only sect, may be Swamiji mentioned them. But then he was a Brahmo Samaj follower.

Vaishnavism is not like Saivism with unique feature. Vaishnavism has different worships. Rama worship, Krishna worship and Perumal worship in Tamil Nadu. It takes popular persons from respective regions and interprets them with Vishnu.


Interestingly, in Tamil Nadu, Vaishnavism followed Jainism (Samanars) for idol worship and Saivism for God worship.

Vivekananda was popular after his Chcago visit. Originally, the Raja Sethupathy was invited, who belonged to Mukkulathor Community, a Saivite. He actually asked Swami Vivekananda to attend. Rest is history.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Historically the worship of Siva came into vogue only after Laghulisa preached his Pasupata Saivam around 4th century c.e. The worship of Vishnu was prevalent even before that.

Tholkappiam speaks about mayon (Vishnu) and not about Siva.
Of course it speaks about Murugan. But Murugan was not mentioned as the son of Siva at that time.

The powerful spread of Saivism embraced all the previous worships. All the previous gods were linked to Siva by way of some relationship. Thus Uma was made His wife. Murugan was His son. Vishnu- brother-in-law. Later when Vinayaka came on the scene, he was made the elder son of Siva.

Murugan was made the son of Siva only later and not in Tholkappiam period or Sangam period.
Only in Thirumurugaruppadai, which is considered to be a very late Sangam work, (some consider it to belong to 8th century c.e.) Murugan is referred to as the son of Siva.

It was to save the ancient preeminence of Vishnu that Ramanuja made Vaishnavism a different sect and preached his doctrine that Narayana is the supreme brahman. His predecessors in Vaishnavism did not differentiate between Siva and Vishnu. Vishnu is even described in Divya Pabandham to be wearing thiruneeru on his body. Siva was part of Vishnu's body or Vishnu was part of Siva's body.

Karaikal Ammaiyar says that thirumal occupied the right part of Siva's body. She cuts a joke- Uma has taken your left. maal has taken the other part. Where will you, Siva, wear sacred ash?

The thenkalai people were the original vishnu-worshippers of Tamilnadu. There was an immigration of a group of people from north. Some of them embraced vaishnavism and came to be known as vadakalai. This difference is found only in Tamilnadu.

As per Brahma Kumaris, Shiva worship was the first one originated as a religion.

Some historians even said Vishnu was a king ruled some part of India.

The word 'mayon' in Tholkappium may nor relate to Visnu, since there were no Tamil speaking kings who followed Vaishnavism. First they were Jains, followed by Buddhists and finally Saivites. Vaishnavism might have been prominent in Tamil Nadu after the advent of Telugu Kings.

Per historical evidence, five major forms of worship prevalent in India - Saivism, Saktham, Gowmaram, Ganapathiyam and Vaishavism. While Saivism was well spread, Saktham was in East, Gowmaram in Tamil Nadu, Ganapathiayam in Maharashtra and Vaishanavism in East and West were prominent. Adi Sankara tried to amalgamate all the five into one. While Shiva Temples embraced other three forms, except Vaishnavism which goes separate.

Vadakalai became prominent after Ramanuja become a Vaishnavite. He was a smartha by birth and belonged to Vadama Sect.

 

[ashwin_ash]

Historically the worship of Siva came into vogue only after Laghulisa preached his Pasupata Saivam around 4th century c.e. The worship of Vishnu was prevalent even before that.

Tholkappiam speaks about mayon (Vishnu) and not about Siva.
Of course it speaks about Murugan. But Murugan was not mentioned as the son of Siva at that time.

The powerful spread of Saivism embraced all the previous worships. All the previous gods were linked to Siva by way of some relationship. Thus Uma was made His wife. Murugan was His son. Vishnu- brother-in-law. Later when Vinayaka came on the scene, he was made the elder son of Siva.

Murugan was made the son of Siva only later and not in Tholkappiam period or Sangam period.
Only in Thirumurugaruppadai, which is considered to be a very late Sangam work, (some consider it to belong to 8th century c.e.) Murugan is referred to as the son of Siva.

It was to save the ancient preeminence of Vishnu that Ramanuja made Vaishnavism a different sect and preached his doctrine that Narayana is the supreme brahman. His predecessors in Vaishnavism did not differentiate between Siva and Vishnu. Vishnu is even described in Divya Pabandham to be wearing thiruneeru on his body. Siva was part of Vishnu's body or Vishnu was part of Siva's body.

Karaikal Ammaiyar says that thirumal occupied the right part of Siva's body. She cuts a joke- Uma has taken your left. maal has taken the other part. Where will you, Siva, wear sacred ash?

The thenkalai people were the original vishnu-worshippers of Tamilnadu. There was an immigration of a group of people from north. Some of them embraced vaishnavism and came to be known as vadakalai. This difference is found only in Tamilnadu.

Many people refer only what English chronicled & published and believed that that is the final word.

Tamil is the mother of all languages of the world is indeed outrageous. But Tamil has an ancient origin equivalent to Sanskrit is also true.

Please do not think that only TN people talk about this. Researchers on Sumerian, Harappan have also referred many similarities & influences of Tamil. Historical Research is not the area where TN / Indian Govts give much support.

The available clear texts in Tamil & Sanskrit have a common factor - Sage Agasthya who was well versed both in Sanskrit & Tamil. Any thing before him may be debatable.

TN should actually thank Maratha Kings of Tanjore who went out of their way to preserve lots of scriptures. The goons (political parties) in TN would have sold them as waste paper.

Siva was 'Cheyon' in Tolkappiam, Krishna was 'Mayon'. There was no 'Saivism' 'Vaishnavism' in days of yore. Brahmins even had surnames such as Pillai Mudali etc.

When the last surviving Dravidian goons such as Brave Bell (Veeramani), Compassionate Fund (Karuna..) die out, we'll know if the ideology of money trumps all other ideologies.

All puranas and saiava siddhantas saying that both tamil and sanskrit originated from sounds of Shiva's udukkai from both sides.

As an aside, Tholkappiam is older than even Aindra (the first book on Sanskrit grammar, much older than Panini).

 

[Vaagmi]

The available clear texts in Tamil & Sanskrit have a common factor - Sage Agasthya who was well versed both in Sanskrit & Tamil. Any thing before him may be debatable.

Yes. sage Agastya was my contemporary and we were friends. He was actually a dark skinned, short and stocky, dravidian featured man without a poonool. So he is the final authority and anything before him is all just debatable. Depending on who wins the debate it will be true or false.

Siva was 'Cheyon' in Tolkappiam, Krishna was 'Mayon'. There was no 'Saivism' 'Vaishnavism' in days of yore. Brahmins even had surnames such as Pillai Mudali etc.

QED. All mudalis and pillais of today are the real brahmins. Not the sharmas and charys.

When the last surviving Dravidian goons such as Brave Bell (Veeramani), Compassionate Fund (Karuna..) die out, we'll know if the ideology of money trumps all other ideologies.

For Courageous Bell and Sympathy Deposit they can be happy that there are still people who think that they have to wait till their death to know the value of their dravidian idelogy. They can go to bed today happily.

All puranas and saiava siddhantas saying that both tamil and sanskrit originated from sounds of Shiva's udukkai from both sides.

Siva enthusiasts can include English and Spanish and even Cantonese to the udukkai (damru) of him. Sound is just sound and you can interpret it as sa or cha or ja or even za depending on how sharp your ears are. Thank you udukkai.

As an aside, Tholkappiam is older than even Aindra (the first book on Sanskrit grammar, much older than Panini).

Now Sympathy Deposit has got one more point to go bed tomorrow also happily because he has written tholkappiyappoonga. He can rewrite his script and claim that when there was only plasma all around and the earth was no where in site there was this tholkappiyam carefully preserved in a cocoon by a magnetic field sheath.