SV: Re: Vivekananda &c.

Fredrik Arnell suddis at GEOCITIES.COM
Tue Mar 24 18:36:46 UTC 1998


> Palaniappa <Palaniappa at AOL.COM>
>>I did not know that and I am glad surezvara was more liberal than
>zankara. But
>>I have a question. Since the time of surezvara, have the zankara mutts
>>followed surezvara’s recommendation or zankara’s regarding who gets
>>into the order? In other words, what are the percentages of kshatriyas
>>vaizyas in the order?
>I don't know exact numbers, but of the ten orders of daSanAmIs, at least
>three have significant numbers of non-brAhmaNa monks. See histories
>written by Jadunath Sarkar or Sadananda Giri, or the more comprehensive
>PhD dissertation by Wade Dazey from UC, Santa Barbara (1987). You won't
>find historical instances of non-brAhmaNa heads of the principal maThas,
>but there are many 'minor' maThas with non-brAhmaNa lineages.
>Contingents of kshatriya monks used to be standard parts of most Rajput
>The Ramakrishna orders, who are derived from the daSanAmIs in lineage,
>have large numbers of non-brAhmaNa monks. In fact, Vivekananda, whose
>name started this discusion, was himself a kshatriya by birth.
>Get Your Private, Free Email at

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list