Free spirit and respect

[Guest guest]

It is difficult or even downright impossible to disagree with

statements that extol spirit of free enquiry, that caution us

not to be superficial, etc. Who in their right mind will want

to be superficial? Who will deny the virtue of free spirited

enquiry? Who can object that this enquiry must be done in a

respectful way. All this is well and good, but what is the

standard for showing respect? Here I am reminded of Sri

Ramanuja's expression of disagreement with Yadhavaprakasa.

To my knowledge Sri Ramanuja did not even speak up until

he was told to do so. (BTW, it is not my intention or

place to propose any standard, let alone this high a

standard for this forum.)

 

 

At 01:00 PM 11/24/97 -0500, Vijay_Srinivasan wrote:

>If I were given a choice to lead a life where I can think

>with a free spirit of enquiry and at the same time being

>respectful to our traditional institution and on the otherhand leading a

>life of fear (constant fear of Bhaghavat/Bhaghavata Apacharam) as a prize

>for moksha, I would prefer the former. Personally, such a goal has no

>value.

 

 

If I may say so, Sri vaishnava life is not a choice between

these two extremes. For a Sri Vaishnava respect to bhagavathas

comes naturally and with willingness, not out of fear, let

alone constant fear. Further, what is mOksha but constant

service to the Lord and Bhagavthaas. Service to bhagavathaas

is sweeter than the service to the Lord Himself. Service

to bhavathaas is the very pinnacle of bhakthi for the Lord.

Is our bhakthi for the Lord predicated upon fear? Obviously

not. Then, there is no question of we avoiding "bhagavatha

apachara" out of fear.

 

Please allow me to present a different dichotomy; if the choice is

between free spirit of enquiry which includes characterizing learned

scholars as intellectually lazy, not digging deep, and studying

superficially, etc. on the one hand, and on the other, service

to bhagavthaas even at the expense of brahmma jnyana, I will

choose the later without a moment of hesitation.

 

Fortunately, we don't have to choose between such stark contrasts.

I think we can vigorously debate with our present day acharyas and

scholars, and even disagree if you must, without telling them that

their understanding fails to give credit to our poorvacharyas and

azhvaars. Restraining oneself in this manner will not diminish

any free spirit.

 

 

 

-- adiyEn

 

 

p.s. I may have missed some posts, when did bhagavatha apacharam

enter this discussion?

[Guest guest]

Dileepan wrote:

> Please allow me to present a different dichotomy; if the choice is

> between free spirit of enquiry which includes characterizing learned

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> scholars as intellectually lazy, not digging deep, and studying

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> superficially, etc. on the one hand, and on the other, service

> to bhagavthaas even at the expense of brahmma jnyana, I will

> choose the later without a moment of hesitation.

 

This is obviously referring to my post. Do I need to clarify

that I meant nothing of the sort that Dileepan has apparently

accused me of? How would I even dare accuse someone such as

devout and learned as Sri Uttamur SwamigaL of such things?

 

I don't think I made any such kind of veiled attacks -- if I

have done so, please point out which learned scholar I have

accused of these things and I will apologize. These kind of

innuendos that are becoming more and more common among

members of our group. This is not a good trend, particularly

among Sri Vaishnavas.

 

Pardon me for introducing a personal note of discomfort

in this bhAgavata goshTi.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Hopefully this shall be my last post on this subject.

The intention is to clarify, not to prolong.

 

First, my protestation was strictly about the phrases

that were used in the course of debate. It really does

not matter all that much to me whether the Azhvaars

are Nithyasoorees or not. The respect and adoration of

the aazhvaars is no less in either POV.

 

Sri Jagan presented Sri Srivatsangachar's view thus:

"He told me that in the Vadagalai tradition, Swami Desikan

made it very clear that the Azhwars are incarnations of

the Shankhu etc and are Nitya Suris. He also mentioned

that in the Tengalai tradition the Azhwars are considered

baddha jivatmas who got moksham at the end of that life."

 

 

Sri Mani expressed surprise and wished to discuss with

Sri Srivatsangachar personally. But later after doing

more research he added:

 

 

[1] ... Swami Desika's intention in quoting this particular sloka

while discussing the advent of the Alvars should be apparent

to the discerning reader.

 

[2] ... This conclusion, in my opinion, is the easy way out,

since it requires little intellectual effort and research.

 

[3] ... it wiser to use their writings as a basis and come to

a common agreement as to what makes sense, rather than

dogmatically sticking to what one things are "Thengalai"

or "Vadagalai."

 

[4] ... It seems that our acharyas wrote and thought with more

subtlety and touching humanity than we sometimes give them

credit.

 

 

Even though I am confident that Sri Mani did not mean any

disrespect to Sri Srivatsangachar, it was equally clear to me

that the implications of the above flow to Sri Srivatsangachar

as well. The implications being,

 

[1] = not a discerning reader,

[2] intellectually lazy,

[3] = dogmatic, and

[4] = not recognizing subtleties.

 

Perhaps it is my ego that makes me see all these. But, in as much

as Sri Jagan was only acting as a "postman", simply conveying to us

what Sri Srivatsangachar had told him, the above implications do not

stop with Jagan, but reach Sri Srivatsangachar as well.

 

I agree with Sri Vijay Triplicane's recent post about personal

comparisons. It pains me to see respected scholars taken lightly.

It pains me equally to see Sri Srivatsangachar's views

characterized, even unintentionally, as in [1] to [4] above.

 

I am not advocating unanimity of views. But when we disagree

why can't we put some effort to make sure that we don't characterize

the other side as dogmatic, intellectually lazy, etc. It is far

better to be intentionally respectful than unintentionally disrespectful.

 

Sri Mani is a good friend and we often have long phone conversations.

I think it is safe to say that our disagreements are easily dwarfed

by the points on which we agree.

 

I seek the forbearance and forgiveness of everyone in this group,

particularly of Sri Mani, for any and all of my aparadhams.

 

 

-- adiyEn

[Guest guest]

My friend Dileepan wrote:

> ... the implications of [Mani's statements above]

> flow to Sri Srivatsangachar ...

 

We see what we wish to see. I did not even have

Srivatsankaachariar Swami in mind when I wrote what

I wrote, and I thought I was very careful and non-

offensive when I wrote. My apologies if my words

were otherwise.

 

Let us move on from this. We have better things to

do than to second-guess each other. At present,

for example, let's enjoy Nammalvar with our friend

Madhavakannan!

 

Mani