[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
Vivek wrote:
[..]
> No, but at the time (and even as recently as 10 years ago) you had to
> be a Hindu to enter the temple, and that's why Haridas was _denied_
> entry.
Vivekenanda was denied entry into a temple in Kerala because he was not a
Brahmin. The priest in charge of the temple asked Vivekananda what his caste
was. Vivekananda replied that he had no caste, as he was a sannyasi. But the
priest persisted and asked him what his caste was before he took to sannyasa.
Vivekananda said that he was a Kshatriya. The priest told Vivekananda that only
a Brahmin could enter the temple and that Vivekananda should pray to God in
order to be born a Brahmin in his next birth.
A Shaivite saint from Tamilnadu was denied entry into a Shiva temple as he
was not a Brahmin. The saint remained outside the temple and could not
have darshan of the Lord because Nandi, who was directly facing the Lord, was
blocking his view. Legend has it that Shiva then requested Nandi to move to one
side so that the saint could have darshan. Nandi moved aside allowing the
saint to behold Shiva. To this day, the Nandi in the temple remains slightly
shifted from his usual position.
In South India, until the nineteenth century, you had to be a *Brahmin* to enter
many (or all?) temples, not just a Hindu. No Kahatriyas, vaishyas or shudras
were allowed.
Pointing out such incidents is inapproriate and would be like pointing out that
Christians were responsible for torturing Galileo and then concluding that
Christians believe in torturing people who hold contrary beliefs.
This is from the SRV archives:
-------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Dvaita concept of sAdhana [was Re: gita 9.32 revived]
From: Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx.net>
Date: 1996/04/18
Message-Id: <4l4eln$4g2@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
Mani Varadarajan wrote:
> Why is it that Kanaka Dasa was not allowed access
> to have darsan of Udipi Krishna?
Because fools exist, and did exist in the past as well also. As you
know, Krishna Himself made it spectacularly clear that he considered the
non-admittance of His devotee inappropriate.
------------------------------------------
Precisely: *because fools exist*. It's pointless to argue that some (foolish)
priest did such-and-such thing and therefore it is a commandment of Hinduism.
> Of course, not everyone agreed with this idea then, and I hope
> that the policy has changed since then, but facts are facts, and it's
> no use trying to sweep them under the rug or ignore them.
>
> -Vivek
-Kartik
