Re : Avoiding certain issues

[Guest guest]

Excuse me, but I really do have to point out some of the absurdities in

these statements.

 

S. Sundar said:

> There are naturally more instances of inequalities shown to

> people over these years. We cannot justify all these incidents.

 

No one is asking you to justify Unshastric behavior. But if there is

shastra pramanam for or against certain behavior, then certainly it can be

justified. Perhaps you don't know enough to justify it yourself. Then why

not try to learn the reasons for it, if indeed you are interested in

Shastric standards.

 

S. Sundar said:

> Just think who are most of us, persons with little knowledge of

> religion and more interest on the welfare of it.

 

Excuse me, but please explain to me how someone can profess "interest in

the welfare" of his/her religion and yet not be interested in learning

about it. If you are really interested in the welfare of Sri Vaisnavism

then begin by educating yourself in it's philosophy and practice. Which

neccessarily means a discussion of the above mentioned topics. Perhaps you

are afraid that you might have to take a personal stand on some

philosophical issue. As far as I am concerned you already have made a

philosophical statement by saying that you don't want to discuss (or even

hear about) this topic even though it is clearly discussed by the Great Sri

Vaisnava Acharyas.

 

S. Sundar said:

> What we can do, take the good aspects from our great Acharyas and

> others. Disregard or playdown the aspects which are not relevant

> to our time.

 

Who says that they are not relevant? You say this without even any

discussion, and even though you profess to know nothing of the topic. Your

suggestion is to simply NOT DISCUSS any topic which is not POLITICALLY

CORRECT, even though it is a part of Sri Vaisnava dogma and is supported by

Shastra.

 

S. Sundar said:

> (King Dasaratha Married to lot of wives,

> Draupathi married to five pandavars those are also in our

> great epics, are we elaborating those things. We take the greatness

> of

> Bhagvat Gita, Neethi of Vithura and sathyam, Eka pathni viratham of

> Sri Rama )

> This is what I meant by avoiding certain topics which may not be

> suitable in the present time.

 

So according to you Lord Krishna spoke Bhagavad Gita, which we should

study, but His personal life we shouldn't talk about because He didn't have

only one wife like Lord Rama. It seems as though you are simply full of

mundane conceptions as regards all these great personalities that you have

mentioned. If you accept Shastra then you must accept ALL of it, not just

the parts that you like. Instead of thinking that there is something wrong

with that ancient society why don't you look around you at the problems and

solutions offered by todays society. Don't think that there is no polygamy

today. People don't have more than one wife AT A TIME, that's all. But what

is worse according to the Gita polygamy or divorce? US Law does not allow a

man to take responsibility for more than one wife. But that same law allows

him to have as many sexual partners outside of marriage as he likes, and to

divorce and re-marry as many times as he like. Which of these alternatives

is more shastric? I am not proposing the intoduction of polygamy. Nor do I

think that it is a particularly important topic in regards to Sri

Vaisnavas. I just want to make the point that some people like to discuss

Shastra but when it comes to the practical application of Shastra they

don't want to compromise their modern lifestyles or politically correct

views. Talk is cheap, what about philosophical integrity and commitment to

follow shastras!

 

S. Sundar said:

> Why should we used this list or any other place to cause divisions in

> our society.

 

Wake up! There are already divisions in our society. Discussion is the only

way for people born and bred into those divisions to hear and appreciate

the other sides viewpoint. It is not with the object of defeating an

opponent that I call for discussion. I call for it to learn the different

interpretations and implementations of Shastra and the reasons for them. I

am not a blind follower of religious dogma or ashamed to defend my beliefs.

 

Hoping that you take this in the spirit of constructive criticism, in which

it is offered.

 

Keshava das