Disagreement vs. Apachara

[Guest guest]

I would like to clarify that what follow are thoughts in general that are

not intended to question or offend anyone. In the process, if I do commit

bhagavatha apacharam (unknowingly ofcourse), I beg forgiveness.

 

Mani's contributions and comments in this often erudite forum, not

withstanding his efforts in putting all this together, have always stood out

for their temperence of tone and rational thought. Given the conditional,

subjective nature of deciding what constitutes apacharam and what does not,

all progressive exchanges would be halted in their primacy if one were to be

guided by the fear of offending someone or the other, as has often been the

case in this forum . I am quite surprised when people pull in our Acharyas

to support often rationally and philosophically untenable positions.

Instances from Sri Emberumaanaar's life abound about his karuNa and open

mindedness in sharing his insights with people from different facets of

life. I am sure most in this forum are familiar with his efforts in

including a large number of Sri VaishNavaas from different walks (and

varNAshramAs) of life into the fold of bhakti and prapatti. The life of

Pillai UrangAvilli dasan is another good example of the inherent kindness

and liberal attitudes that our beloved Emberumaanaar practiced. Given this

background, it pains one's sentiments to see expressions that seek to

support our ignorance and insular views with references of tacit approval

from our poorvacharyars.

 

Someone yesterday even went so far as to indicate that there are

objectionable parts to the Prasthanatrayi in the context of VarNAshrama

Dharma. Such utterances, I feel, represent the type of superficial

carelessness our philosophical treatises ought not to be treated with. No

person intimately familiar with the exalted nature of rational thought and

open minded inquiry in these wonderful storehouses of knowledge would make

such statements. I am reasonably familiar with both Srimad Bhagavadgita

and the principal upanishads (Isa, kena, katha, Prasna, Mundaka, Mandukya,

Taitheriya, Aithreya, Chandogya and BrihadaraNyaka). BadarAyaNa's Brahma

Sutras (the third part of the prasthana thrayi) are said to reflect the

essence of the upanishads. While it is possible to interpret support for

VarNashrama dharma from such statements as

 

ChathurvaNyam mayA srishTam guNa karma VibhAgayoho (BG, 4-13)

 

the second part of the sentence very clearly enunciates that it is people's

guNa (mental attitudes) and karma (actions) that determine the varNa.

>From my perspective, correctness (clearly subjective) stems from

conditioning. For someone like me (raised in then-kalai vaishnavaite

tradition), it is disconcerting to see erroneous statements from many

learned vadakalai scholars in this forum about our tradition and

pooravacharyas (there is clearly very little reference to works of great

acharyas such as Azhagiya maNavaLa perumaaL Naayanaar, NumpiLLai, maNavaaLa

maamunigal, piLLai loka charyar to name a few). Some one recently even

referred to vaDakku thiru Veedui piLLai as thiru vadakku veedhi piLLai!

However, I do realize that one can only reflect ideas and thoughts that one

has been exposed to.

 

A spirit that promotes open minded inquiry, and yes, tolerance for one

another's view points (irrespective of the age of the bhagavathas involved

in the exchange) would serve to promote the cause of this admirable forum

that Sri Mani has put together. If not for any other reason, we can abide

by what Sri PiLLai lokacharyar says,

 

anukoolar pakkal anaadaraththaiyyum

prathikoolar pakkal praavaNyaththaiyyum

upekshikkumavar pakkal apekshaiyyum...

........

NAICCHYAM JANMA SIDDHAM

 

After all, don't we all fade into insignificance in the incredible glow of

SrimannArayaNa's divinity? In that case, inferiority is inherent to all of

us in reference to the Supreme, and till that fact is recognized (and we

stop splitting hairs about who is and is not a brahmin), one will continue

to wallow in the miasma of one's own ignorance.

 

Aazhwaar Emberumaanaar Jeeyar ThiruvadigaLe SharaNam

 

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

First, the ignorant someone referred below is me. (Sri Sridhar: it is

quite okay to name me, others have used worse epithets; I won't accuse you

of anything let alone bhagavatha apachaaram :-))

 

 

At 11:58 PM 1/16/97 -0600, Sridhar Srinivasan wrote:

>

> I am quite surprised when people pull in our Acharyas

>to support often rationally and philosophically untenable positions.

>Instances from Sri Emberumaanaar's life abound about his karuNa and open

>mindedness in sharing his insights with people from different facets of

>life. I am sure most in this forum are familiar with his efforts in

>including a large number of Sri VaishNavaas from different walks (and

>varNAshramAs) of life into the fold of bhakti and prapatti. The life of

>Pillai UrangAvilli dasan is another good example of the inherent kindness

>and liberal attitudes that our beloved Emberumaanaar practiced. Given this

>background, it pains one's sentiments to see expressions that seek to

>support our ignorance and insular views with references of tacit approval

>from our poorvacharyars.

 

 

To my knowledge no one has claimed that the way of bhakthi/prapatti is

closed to all except brahmins. No one has claimed that respect is due only

to brahmins. No one has stated that non-brahmins must be kept out of Sri

Vaishnavam. Then, there is no question of "seeking support for our

ignorance and insular views with references of tacit approval from our

poorvacharyars."

 

If Sri. Sridhar Srinivasan is referring to varNashrama dharma when he says,

"rationally and philosophically untenable positions" then I must say there

is not tacit, but open support for it among the writings of not just our

poorvacharyaas such as Sri Ramanuja, but our Lord Sri Krishna Himself. The

Sri Vaishnava interpretation of Sri BG does not do away with birth as a

determining factor for varNa. All our Acharyas irrespective of kalai have

supported varNaashrama dharma. To my knowledge even the Jeeyars and other

sanyaasees of Sri Vaishnava persuasion retain their yagyopaveedham and do

not give up on varNa based duties. Have they misunderstood the examples

from Sri Ramanuja's life story and his writings which include staunch

defense of Manu smrithi? I think not.

 

Whenever varNa is mentioned an assumption of ill treatment of

untouchables/sudhras is immediately made. Let me say, just in case, I am

not denying or condoning such ill treatment. However, such ill-treatment

is a result of ignorance and greed and the perpetrators come from all walks

of life and varNaas, even the "untouchables". Brahmins following the

angaas of varNa dharma is the least of the problems the dalits face.

 

If Sri Sridhar Srinivasan does not mean varNaashrama dharma when he says

"ignorance and insular views", then he needs to elaborate further and also

relate it to what what has been written by me and others in this forum.

Any indictment must be backed up with at least prima face evidence.

 

>

>Someone yesterday even went so far as to indicate that there are

>objectionable parts to the Prasthanatrayi in the context of VarNAshrama

>Dharma. Such utterances, I feel, represent the type of superficial

>carelessness our philosophical treatises ought not to be treated with. No

>person intimately familiar with the exalted nature of rational thought and

>open minded inquiry in these wonderful storehouses of knowledge would make

>such statements.

 

 

I readily agree that my knowledge is quite superficial. But carelessness,

I am not guilty of, at least in this instance. If you read my comments

carefully you will realize that they were directed at those who may seek

radical changes in our tradition. I am sure most in this group are aware

that different people have interpreted the prasthana thraiya differently.

Those who find varNashrama dharma repugnant have many objectionable parts

in the prasthana thraiya. There was a long discussion in

Soc.Religion.Vaishnava about Sri Vaishnava interpretation of a verse in

Srimad BG that women and sudhras are sinful by birth. Therefore, those

wanting to follow Sri Vaishnavam and at the same time modify or throw out

varNaashrama dharma have no other option but to purge any statement

relating to varNa/sudhras in our scriptures and also go against some of the

teachings of our poorvaacharyas. All I am saying is this is the

predicament the seekers of radical change face.

 

Observance to VarNaashrama dharma views, which by the way is kalai

independent, is something we have to deal with within the leadership of our

Acharyaas. I am ignorant in many ways, but there is one thing I am not

ignorant of, i.e. Sri Ramanuja's advice that we must follow our Acharyas.

Ask your acharya what he thinks about doing away with varNashrama dharma.

 

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not against change per se. But when

you advocate change as a Sri Vaishnava and invoke Sri Ramanuja's life,

then, to be consistent, you have to do it in a way that does not flout one

of the foremost of Sri Ramanuja's teaching, respect to bhaagavathas and

acharyaas. I think all the points that were made could have been made

within the norms of Sri Vaishnava behavior. I cannot accept that the only

way to engage in open minded enquiry is to roundly criticize others of

bigotry and worse.

 

 

Thanks, Dileepan

[Guest guest]

Sri Dileepan writes:

>then, to be consistent, you have to do it in a way that does not flout one

>of the foremost of Sri Ramanuja's teaching, respect to bhaagavathas and

>acharyaas. I think all the points that were made could have been made

>within the norms of Sri Vaishnava behavior. I cannot accept that the only

>way to engage in open minded enquiry is to roundly criticize others of

>bigotry and worse.

>

 

Let me clarify, in no uncertain terms, that certain views expressed by me

were critical of views expressed by Mr. Dileepan or others visavis the

discussion on VarNashrama Dharma. However, construal of a difference of

opinion as personal criticism seems to overlook a subtle but a clear

distinction: Mr. Dileepan's views, in this instance, are the ones I differ

with; not Sri Dileepan the person/Bhagavatha. I have the utmost respect for

him and other elders in this forum for their erudition and contributions;

however, I do believe that we should strive to allow each other the freedom

to express differing view points/interpretations(and to be taken as nothing

more, DEFINITELY NOT STRIDENT CRITICISM OF OTHERS OF BIGOTRY AND WORSE),

devoid of the pressure of having to put statuotory disclaimers (which are

conveniently ignored) or having to deal with, as a consequence, every

significant, self-anointed elder, jumping on the dissenting person as an

immature idiot (both by private mail and in public) and further, to be told

that this is not Emberumaanaar's way. Does it not seem trivial that in

sorting out our differences of opinions and ego displays(after all,

attachment to one's veiws does constitute just that), we have to also invoke

Sri Emberumaanaar's ways?

 

Sri Dileepan writes

>If Sri. Sridhar Srinivasan is referring to varNashrama dharma when he says,

>"rationally and philosophically untenable positions" then I must say there

>is not tacit, but open support for it among the writings of not just our

>poorvacharyaas such as Sri Ramanuja, but our Lord Sri Krishna Himself. The

>Sri Vaishnava interpretation of Sri BG does not do away with birth as a

>determining factor for varNa. All our Acharyas irrespective of kalai have

>supported varNaashrama dharma. To my knowledge even the Jeeyars and other

>sanyaasees of Sri Vaishnava persuasion retain their yagyopaveedham and do

>not give up on varNa based duties. Have they misunderstood the examples

>from Sri Ramanuja's life story and his writings which include staunch

>defense of Manu smrithi? I think not.

 

I would respectfully disagree about this. What is varnasrama dharma per

prasthana thrayi? Is it an evolutionary classifiction of people based on

their guNas and actions (a murderer or a thief is a less desirable

acquaintance than

an honest intellectual) or is it a system of racist separation designed to

garner power in the hands of a few? Manu smrithi clearly represents the

latter position. Howerver, our Lord Krishna is very clear about his

utterances on this issue and they correspond, in my view, with the former.

Let us examine a few stanzas from BG:

 

4-13: ChAthurvarNyam mayA srishTam guNA karma Vibhagayoho

 

Four varNas have been created by me on the basis of guNA (mental

temperament/attribute) and Karma (actions). Patanjali's yoga sutras

attribute different colors to different temperaments, e.g., sattwa is

considered white, rajas is red and tamas is black. Isn't Man essentially

the thoughts that he entertains? The way this shloka reads is, in a manner

not dissimilar to how we socially organize our lives based on our attributes

and functions, so can Men be classified broadly into groups based on mental

atributes and corresponding actions. Is it our Lord's fault if Man in his

greed for power and concomitant material benefits, conveniently used the

first half (I created the four varNas) to seek Godly sanction to an

essentially human folly. Other shlokas that re-inforce the guNa and karma

based classification:

 

7-16: Chathurvidha bhajante mAm janaaha sukruthinorjunA

artho jignyasurartharthi gnyAni cha bharatharshabha

 

9-32: mAm hi pArtha vyapAsrithya yE pi syuhu pApayOnayaha

sthriyo vyshyAha thatHa shudraaha thepi yanthi paraam gathim

-33: kimpunarbrAhmaNAha puNyA bhakthAha rAjarshayahA thatHa

 

Sri KrishNa devotes three entire chapters to discuss the characteristics and

actions of the evolved bhaktha and gnyani as opposed to the MooDhaas who do

not realize that He alone is the UpAya and UpEya; (avajananthi maam muDhaaha

mAnusheem thanumAshritham). Further on in 9-12, he further expands on these

deluded jeevaathmas who are "MogHAshAha, mogHagnyAnAha, vichethasaha

mOhineem, rAkshaseem, aasureem prakrithimAshrithaaha".

 

He avers again and again about the role attributes of those who have natures

where thamas dominates. So when he uses the term Shudra in 9-32, it is not

(as is conveniently interpreted) the individual of inferior birth. If so,

why would he describe the essential nature of humanity in nine adhyAyAs and

how these natures contribute to different states of evolution; would it not

be rather easier to just talk about birth-based varNas? If there is one

aspect that is made clear by Lord KrishNa, it is the notin of spiritual

evolution as a basis for Moksha. The discussion here is not about physical

attributes, rather about mental attitudes. The feminine component (one with

deep material attachments), Shudras (those driven by tamasic tendencies,

clearly there is no discussion of genealogy here) and those who are seeking

the material profit motive even at the psychological level (Vysyas).

 

When Sri Dileepan says there is shastric injunction (in the

Prasthanathrayi) to support birth-based varNAshrama Dharma, I would like him

to produce the relevant stanzas, especially from the Bhagavad Geetha that

support this position. To say (and this is CARELESS) "all our acharyas

irrespective of kalai have supported (manu smrithi based} varNashrama

dharma", I think, is an untenable position. If justification of varNashrama

dharma on the basis of manu smrithi is morally repugnant (it is to me), I

believe Sri Dileepan is attributing similar notions to people whose views

(in this case clearly) he is not aware of. Sri PiLLailokacharyar (to name

one thenkalai acharya who minces no words when he talks of

Naicchyanusandhaanam visavis the Supreme Lord) says thus:

 

manassukku theemaiyAvadu swaguNathaiyum bhagavat bhAgavatha doshathaiyu

ninaikkai

dOsham ninaiyAdozhigiradhu guNambOle uNDAyiRukkavonnu

doshamuNDenRu ninaikkil adhu paradosham anRu swadosham

 

To think of oneself in superior terms is a dosham. Further, to find fault

or even non-qualifying states in others is swa-dOsham. When time ought to be

spent in ridding one of one's own state of nescience (and the Acharya feels

there is not enough time in a lifetime to achieve this), it is hardly

meaningful to indulge in wondering about the states of evolution (or lack of

them) for others.

 

Emberumaanaar made eighteen arduous trips to learn thirumanthraartham (given

to him as a rahasyam), then stood on the mountain top and gave it to anyone

who was willing to listen. When asked by thirukkachi nambigal as to whether

he was aware of what he was doing, his reply was" If all these folks will

reach SrimannarayaNa by knowing this, I would gladly do it. I will beget

narakam for disobeying injunctions of my guru (and not because he revealed

the rahasyartham) but so be it if all these people would attain salvation".

Now are these the actions of a person who supported manu-smrithi based

notions of varNashrama dharma? To reveal something sacred and brahminical

to all and sundry? If actions speak louder than words, then Emberumaanaar's

life is replete with instances that clearly show that his desire for

bringing people of all varNAs (clearly a notion repudiatory of varNashrama

Dharma) to the feet of SrimannArAyaNA.

 

If one examines the nature of the Universe per our Acharyas, there are the

24 AChith prakaraNams (material notions or objects), the chith prakaraNam

(jeevathma thathvam) and SrimannArAyaNa. How can one justify discriminating

between jeevathmas on the basis of birth (that their proximity to salvation

is a function of their attributes and actions is not a notion that requires

much explanation) in this framework?

 

I would like to state that, in my view, retaining yagnyopaveetham or doing

sandhya vandanam does not constitute objectionable varNashrama dharma. It

is when we judge people without awareness of their guNas and Karma (as Sri

Mani pointed out with respect to the thirumagisai alwars-brahmins incident)

that we fall prey to the human tendency (Vasana) to hold oneself in a

relatively superior position. To believe that our Acharyas, with their

expansion of vision, catholicity of action and the immense audaryam towards

all of creation (do they not all belong to the supreme lord?) would

to similar views, I feel, is inconsistent with the evidence out there.

 

I thank the bhagavathas in this group (and Sri Mani in particular) for this

opportunity to share my views. Nothing said here has any personal intent;

these are merely view points that are at some points different from those of

Sri Dileepan. I am learning by these exchanges and I hope so will others.

 

Aazhwaar Emberumaanaar Jeeyar ThiruvadigaLe SharaNam

 

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

At 12:00 AM 1/19/97 -0600, Sri Sridhar Srinivasan wrote:

>I would like him to produce the relevant stanzas, especially from

>the Bhagavad Geetha that support this position."

 

 

I am not well read or a scholar by any stretch of the imagination.

What little I think I know is through casual reading of commentaries

and listening to Upanyaasams. From this limited understanding I

produce the following:

 

 

* Please look at what Arjuna says in BG 1.41 and 1.42

Lord Krishna not repudiating it shows that birth is, "a"

determining factor for caste.

 

* Sri u.vE. ThirukkaLLam Nrisimharaghavachariyar Swamy

gives the following interpretation for "paapayOnayOpi Syu"

from BG 9.32:

 

"janmAndhra paavaththAl thaazhndha piRaviyaip

peRRiruppinum"

 

(even if born into low caste due to sins of

previous births).

 

The preface of this book says the following about ThirukkaLLam

swamy's commentary,

 

"Sri raamaanuja sidhdhaanthaith thazhuviyum, thaathparya

chandhrigaiyil uLLa vishEshaarththanGalaith thazhuviyum"

 

(This commentary is based on Sri Ramanuja's doctrine and

Thathparya Chandrika)

 

Thus, what this swamy says is in line with Sri Ramanuja and

Swamy Sri Desikan.

 

* BG 18.41 - 18.48 describes the duties of the four varNaas.

It goes to the extent of stating that it is better to do one's

own duty even if it is not done well, than to do someone else's

duty well. Our sampradyam has held that one's duty is determined

by the varNaa in which one is born.

 

* This point is based on an Upanyasam of Sri Bhashyam by

Sri M.S. Rajagopalacharyar. (Sri Mani Varadarajan has a

copy of this set of cassettes.) I am unable to provide

further references such as an exact quote. In the chapter(s)

dealing with criticism of other religions, Sri Ramanuja states

that Manu Smrithi is sacred. I request any knowledgeable

member to provide the exact quote for this.

 

Now, let me ask a question, is there anything in GPP or other

sampradaya text where in someone born in the fourth varNa was

elevated to a full brahmNa status due to conduct, in either of

the two kalais? If not, it seems action is consistent with the

writings.

 

It is my understanding based on the writings of individuals

who are full-time Sri Vaishnava scholars that in our tradition,

from Sri Ramanuja's time to the present time, birth was never

ignored in determining one's varNA duties.

 

I have no comment about the need for not feeling superior,

all varNAs are brought together for ascending to Sriman Narayana's

lotus feet, overcoming one's own state of nescience, etc., etc.

There is no disagreement with these. Only thing I wish to submit

is that our sampradayam has held that the practice of varNAshrma

dharma is not inconsistent with any of these.

 

 

-- Dileepan

 

 

p.s. 1: My position on VarNashrama dharma is, having chosen a life of

convenience, we ought not try to redefine it in a blanket fashion for

everyone including the vedhic scholars who are dear to our Lord

Sriman Narayana.

 

p.s. 2: Sri Sridhar says Manu Smrithi is morally repugnant. Is this

view shared by Sri vaishnavas of thenkalai or vadakalai? What is the

orthodox view? Do the Jeeyars of either kalai think it is morally

repugnant? If Sri Rajagopalachariyar is to be believed, Sri Ramanuja

himself did not think so. I have no reason to doubt his words.

 

p.s. 2: IF discussions should remain above personal level other's

opinions should not be characterized as "ignorant", "careless",

or "superficial", disclaimers not withstanding. Unfortunately,

such characterizations are by nature personal.

 

 

--------------------------

ISS, Inc. 423-870-3051 (Voice)

1908 Preswood drive 423-870-4571 (Fax)

Hixson, TN 37343