Arguments over "who's better ?"

[Guest guest]

It's interesting that there is a definite divide among us on how best to go

about being Sriviashnavas..

 

On the one hand, there are people - and yes I am among them - who definitely

seem to take a tolerant attitude towards other maargas. The response I have

cultivated over years of argument, especially with Christians is " Well, my

religion says 'svadharme nidhana shreya:' . I take that to mean you have your

way and I have mine. We are heading to the same place. Hopefully, I'll see

you there".

 

Now we come up against what is difinitely, and undeniably established by

acharyas and commentators - whether it be in 'para matha bhangam' in

Sri Nigamaantha Desika's turgid sanskrit or 'saakkiya peygaL' in aazhvaar

thamizh. Can we choose to ignore these parts of Sri Vaishnavism ?

 

To digress a little, this is a dilemma faced by many catholic friends of

mine. Is it possible to pick and choose the parts of your heritage that appeal

yo you as undeniably beautiful and choose not to practice the rest ? The same

question applies here I think.

 

Personally, I think the answer is yes. Consider that Hinduism has definitely

been an evolving religion. Of course, with a very heavy traditional

rearguard action but a dynamic and changing religion that has lived, and

evolved through the ages yes. It is possible to remain on the sidelines and

bewail the loss of many things.

 

However I think it is also possible to do what is known in Thamizh as

"muththu kuLiyal" - diving for pearls. Go into the ocean, and bring out what

you like. There is enough in the ocean that you should find SOMETHING you

like.

 

We do not, by choosing to differ from Acharyas on some issues, negate all the

beautiful simplicity that they established. Yes it is possible to question.

If that possibility is stifled, I think we will end up the losers as a

community of SriVaishnavas - the thondar kuzhaam.

 

With my regards,

 

Sundar