(No subject)

[Guest guest]

Vidyasankar writes

 

*** 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?

 

This is exactly the problems the Brahmins faced. The question really

is whether or not one should err on the side of caution when one is

unsure if an individual is a Bhagavata. The orthodox position is that

one should err on the side of caution, because if a mistake is

committed and rahasyas are imparted to the unqualified, then a greater

harm is done than concealing the rahasyas (after all, who knows how

the "contaminated" information would spread vid. Sukracharya).

 

*** If we want to ignore Varnasrama dharma when convenient, it seems just

*** a tad bit hypocritical to interpret it strictly at other times.

 

The issue is not whether our actions today are consistent, but rather,

the actions of our ancestors in the remote past. It is not that they

are being charged with hypocrisy, but with bigotry. In fact, had they

not done as per the dictates of the sastras, we would be calling them

hypocrites!

 

Frankly, I don't see any purpose gained by making these judgements and

pronouncements. First, who are we to condemn a society that is

bygone? Is our own house in order that we can simply and categorically

condemn a group of people whom (1) we have never seen and (2) we are

not even sure existed (after all, hagiographies are never considered

Sruti. At most, we can say that in similar circumstances, we would

have acted differently (perhaps in 20/20 hindsight), and perhaps

further, we can instruct our children to not observe those sastras

which we feel are inconsistent with our present day values.

 

Such attacks are unfortunate for they are often unwanted distractions

to the fundamental idea at hand. Indeed, GVP mentioned that the

Brahmins acted childishly. That is far different from categorizing

the ancient Brahmins as a nasty petty people. The tone of the text

(which is as important as the words themselves) was to show the

greatness of the Alwar, and not the pettiness of the Brahmins. By

missing this, one is drawn into a arcane morass of history and

politics that detracts from the discussion of religion.

 

It is clear that Thirumazhisai Alwar did not consider it an insult,

but we, more than a thousand years later feel sorry for him? We feel

sorry for Thirumazhisai Alwar, said to be an amsham of Chakratalvar?

That seems laughable. If not T. Alwar whom we should pity, who else

should we be pitying? The multitudes of lost-souls who could have

been "saved" but who, by the ignorance and bigotry of the Brahmins,

were forced into countless cycles of birth and death? From the

advatic standpoint, this is a meaningless worry. From a visistadvatic

viewpoint, it is equally ridiculous, for this would imply that if

these so-called bigoted Brahmins never existed, more souls would have

been emancipated.

 

Frankly, if the goal is social upliftment, the avenue is not Vedic

religion, whose focus is personal upliftment. The avenue is intead

the path that some of my friends have taken over the years that have

included going to villages, living with the downtrodden, teaching the

poor English etc.. Sitting in our armchairs, with a keyboard in hand,

it is so easy to make pronouncements.

 

Sumanth