Disagreement vs. Apachara

[Guest guest]

At 10:04 AM 01-16-97, M Srinivasan wrote:

>It pains me to see Sri. Mani being accused of bhaagavata apachaara. I do not

>know how many of us are fully familiar with all the writings (and other

 

I fully agree with Sri Srinivasan's sentiments.

 

I propose we declare a moratorium on the phrase "bhagavata apachara" . This

has of late and all too often been used to void any spirit of enquiry or

free thought on several issues.

 

We truly value our members who have much to share with us from the

tradition. However, it is the duty of each generation to know the tradition

and apply it to their lives. If this is not done in a pirit of honesty and

sharing, religion is reduced to an endless (and futile) rearguard action

against any change. And, we must admit, religion HAS changed. In fact, some

of our acharyas that traditionalists and others revere have been active

agents of that change.

 

If we don't allow ourselves to think about it, then tradition becomes what

was past. This is not something we can allow to happen to SriVaishnavism.

 

So how about it ? No more mandatory objections of "bhagavata apacharam" ?

 

Best Wishes to all,

 

Sundar

[Guest guest]

It pains me to see Sri. Mani being accused of bhaagavata apachaara. I do not

know how many of us are fully familiar with all the writings (and other

works) of all the great Acharyas so that nothing we have to say will not

contradict some part of the body of such great works. If respectful

disagreement is to be construed as bhaagavata apacahara, then there is not

much room for philosophical or theological discussions in this group.

 

It is acknowledged by many scholars that right from the time of Sri Bhagavad

Ramanuja, there have been disagreements among subsequent acharyas on various

philosophical matters. Does this mean we should accuse those acharyas with

whom our acharyas may disagree of bhaagavata apachara? I do not think so. I

think it is possible to try to refute an argument with a counter argument

without accusing the proponent of apachara. I hope I am not just speaking for

myself only when I say that Sri. Mani's kainkarya in organizing, maintaining

and contributing to this group is held in very high regard.

 

Dasan Srinivasan.

[Guest guest]

I do appreciate Sri Mani's efforts in running this e-mail list as much as

any other person in this list. However, his efforts do not automatically

exempt him from occasional criticisms. This post includes such criticisms

and I seek Sri Mani's forgiveness.

 

 

At 10:04 AM 1/16/97 -0600, M Srinivasan wrote:

>.... If respectful disagreement is to be construed as bhaagavata

apacahara, >then there is not much room for philosophical or theological

discussions in >this group.

 

 

To my knowledge Sri Mani's objections to Sri Murali Rangaswami prompted a

few mild and quite respectful disagreements. Sri Mani's response included:

 

"Practice your sandhyavandanam, be a vegetarian,

do thiruvaaraadhanai; but don't let these be the

excuse for committing bhagavata-apacharam."

>From this it can be argued that Sri M. Srinivasan's complaint applies more

to Sri Mani than to Sri Anbil Ramaswami, the unnamed accused. Further, I

am unable to see any respectful philosophical or theological exchange of

ideas in the above quote. All I see is a blanket innuendo that those who

are serious about anushtaanam take that as an excuse to commit bhagavatha

apacharam against non-brahmins. It is not surprising that such a blanket

statement is itself seen as a bhagavatha apacharam.

 

Digressing a little bit, not much, all the different interpretations of

Azhvaar life stories and GPP not withstanding, I think most would agree

that there was no call for doing away with Manu smrithi or Varnashrama

dharama by any of the aazhvaars or our poorvaachaaryas including Sri

Ramanuja. Even the disputed episode goes to show that Thirumazhisai Azvaar

was not about to challenge the practice of Varnashrama dharma. It is clear

from these, at least to me, that the practice of Varnashrama dharmaa _per

se_ is not considered disrespectful to bhagavathaas and thus not bhagavatha

apachara in our tradition. Therefore, Sri Vaishnavas who are serious about

radical changes such as throwing out/modify Varnashrama dharma have no

other option but to leave the fold of Sri Vaishnava tradition and initiate

a new revolutionary tradition that declares void the parts of prasthana

thraiya and other important scriptures they find objectionable. On the

other hand, if evolutionary change is in their minds they should shed

themselves of the strong rhetoric and become influential among the ranks of

practicing Sri Vaishnavas so that they can someday come into the position

of making some incremental changes. Those who are unable to do either will

have to endure the frustrations of the inherent contradictions between

their modern-day liberal thinking and their inexplicable desire to follow

tradition.

 

 

Thanks, Dileepan

 

 

p.s. 1: It is not my intention to criticize Mani; if that was so I would

have followed up his article long ago. The main purpose of this post is to

show that Sri M Srinivasan's complaint against Sri Anbil Ramaswami, who was

not named but obviously meant, is baseless.

 

p.s. 2: I once again wish to apologize to Sri Mani if I had disappointed

him in any way by the frank expression of my opinion about his comments.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Parthasarati Dileepan wrote:

 

[..]

>

> To my knowledge Sri Mani's objections to Sri Murali Rangaswami prompted a

> few mild and quite respectful disagreements. Sri Mani's response included:

>

> "Practice your sandhyavandanam, be a vegetarian,

> do thiruvaaraadhanai; but don't let these be the

> excuse for committing bhagavata-apacharam."

>

> >From this it can be argued that Sri M. Srinivasan's complaint applies more

> to Sri Mani than to Sri Anbil Ramaswami, the unnamed accused. Further, I

 

I thought Mani's comment applied more to the Brahmanas of the time of the

Azhwar, and not to Sri Anbil Ramaswamy per se.

 

I can agree with you that the fact that Mani is operating this list does

not exempt him from criticism. I'm sure Mani will also agree.

 

However, I don't think that his valid questions have been answered

satisfactorily. I have similar questions and haven't found any

simple answers so far. Varnasrama Dharma dictates certain rules. Strict

adherence to these rules necessarily means that Sudras are not respected

by Brahmanas. However, showing disrespect to a Bhagavata who is not a

Brahmana gets labelled Bhagavata-apachara and certain consequences result

from such behavior. How is a Sudra who is a Bhagavata to be identified?

Can an identically disrespectful behavior pattern with respect to a Sudra

who is not considered a Bhagavata be acceptable? How is one to recognize

that a certain Sudra is of the stature of a Nammazhwar or a Tirumazhisai

Azhwar? In other words, how is such internal tension between two

contradictory principles (Varnasrama on the one hand, and equal respect to

all Bhagavatas irrespective of caste on the other) to be resolved?

 

Similar questions arise from both the Srivaishnava perspective and the

advaita perspective. The sentiment expressed in the Manisha pancakam

(i.e. whether a person is a Brahmana or a candala, if he knows the

Atman, he is to be respected as a guru) is seldom observed in practice.

The Brahmana's habitual disregard for the candala precludes any

possibility that the Brahmana gets a true picture of the candala's level

of knowledge. Most often, the Brahmana assumes that the candala is a

worthless being, and less than human. Consequently, even if there is a

candala out there who knows the Atman, the chances that a Brahmana comes

to know of it are remote indeed.

 

If nothing else, the stories of the Azhwars and the Saiva saint Nandanar

show us the necessity for humility in those among us who consider

ourselves the highest Brahmanas. (And believe me, being a Smarta, I know

that most Smartas will consider themselves to be the highest possible

Brahmanas, than whom there is none better.) We do not observe the

Varnasrama dharma strictly today. We want to live anywhere in the world

for the sake of our livelihoods, without going through tedious Prayascitta

and Suddhi ceremonies that are dictated by strict Varnasrama dharma. This

is very different from what the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujam had to

do, less than a hundred years ago, for having lived in England. If we

want to ignore Varnasrama dharma when convenient, it seems just a tad bit

hypocritical to interpret it strictly at other times.

 

With regards,

S. Vidyasankar