RE: Digest Number 1696

[Guest guest]

Shri Ranja ji

 

Thanks for your kind gesture of giving importance to my comments by

responding. I bow you for that.

 

I am pleased with your point of view and feel enlightenened by your

views.

 

1. A True advaitin may not follow Sri Vaishnava tradition; but It

is not improper for him to respect other paths. Sri Vaishnava tradition

is very emphatic on worship of other gods. From my limited understanding

of the texts of this philosophy, this is based on extensive quotes and

'pramanas' from vedas and other scriptures. Any compromise or

nullification on this will make the philosophy very shaky. The Sri

vaishnava tradition is very practical to follow and does not suffer from

the conceptual confusions of our philosophy and is therefore 'good' at

'vyavahaaric' level. Remember, they also accept certain principles of

advaita.

 

So, I wish to humbly submit that any frame of mind which 'ranks' other

philosophies may be showing the biasedness of our viewpoint only.

 

2. Secondly, I think that, as a hindu south-indian religious

society, we have become so reactive, defensive, protective that we don't

even encourage comments from 'outsiders' for any public actions. This

is , unfortunately, true for all sects in the South (the only place I

know). What is 'meddling'? Is not Sri Adishankara 'meddling' in all

other sects and tried to convince his advaita to them? Good that he was

not born now! Else, He will be simply told to 'shut up and mind his

business' rather than be invited for a debate for proving his point.

Why has the mutt heads, our guiding lamps, so intolerant I don't know?

 

Sri Kanchi Acharya has simply said that any attempt to change the agama

tradition at Tirumala is not good. Ofcourse, His comment was based on

inaccurate reports. But, In my humble opinion, he has said nothing

which is improper.

 

When eknaath was attacked by a person, He was rescued by his disciple.

When he woke up, the disciple asked him whether he is conscious of the

happening. Ekanaath said that the person who attacked him has now

rescued him and is treating him. How Noble!

 

3. As regards caste based separation, Kanchi Mutt is simply

following the tradition of centuries. Our point of view may be

different but who are we to force this practice on them. At a karma

level, this is sanctioned for advaitins by smruti. (I am no way

justifying it, please!). Kanchi mutt is honest enough is to say that

caste distincion is sanctioned (nay, ordered...) by the scriptures.

There is no hiding away from this.

 

As to your complaining to police, forget it. There has been many many

articles on this in national and local dailies. They even have a college

where brahmins and non-brahmins (it is my wording now!) are living

separately.

 

Thanks

 

jayaram

 

jayaram

 

=====================

Message: 10

Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:56:49 -0700

"Chakkara Rangarajan" <crangara

RE: Digest Number 1695

 

Namaste all,

 

Are we not missing a point? It is true that as a human being, Sri

Ramanuja wants to give an identification to the God. But, if we believe

what described below, then the God himself wants that kind of

distinction. The God cud have kept silent but he chose to act and to

prove some point to the world.

 

I was brought in the vaishnavite tradition and had the opportunity to

drink little bit of teachings offered by the Acharyas. We should all

remember the historical background of development of vaishnavism in

India. The sword of islam was looming large during that period. Every

sultan of Delhi and the kings of local muslim provinces were hell bent

on destroying the temples and traditions. To save the part of Hinduism

that was practiced during that time, he codified the laws stringently.

In fact, the muslims were problamatic for all the practitioners of

advaita/smarthas.

It is also true that the latter day acharayas did not dilute the

stringency imposed by Sri Ramanuja and till date, consider all other

form of worship as inferior.I consider this as bad and so left the path

of Sri Ramanuja.

 

I am writing the following item to give some picture about the on-going

tussle in Tamilnadu(India).

 

BTW, this meddling of Kanchi sankaracharya is nothing but pure

politics. He did the same thing to the palani murugan temple, which was

not managed by the vaishnavites but some other sects and that created a

huge uproar. In 1993, when we visited kanchi temple, they had the

practice of serving food to the people, which was a noble practice.

Unfortunately, they were serving food separately to the brahmins and so

called "non-brahmins" (Sorry to use this kind of terminology, which I

don't like to use, but these were terms used by the authorities of

kanchi mutt). We went to complain this to the the presiding seer of the

mutt and we were not allowed to do that. So, we chose to walk out of the

place without partaking the food (we were ten and amongst us, there were

4 so called other caste people). We cud have filed a police complaint,

as this kind of discrimination is not allowed in tamilnadu. But we chose

not to do that. It is their policy to practice and it is our policy not

to practice and leave it to the great leveller "Kaal (time)" to settle

the issue.

 

It is true that we all want these kind of "exclusive" religions/cults

etc to change but let us not force them.

 

Let this discussion group stay away from that kind of politics.

 

Rgds

--Ranga

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ranga,

> Are we not missing a point? It is true that as a human being, Sri

> Ramanuja wants to give an identification to the God. But, if we

believe

> what described below, then the God himself wants that kind of

> distinction. The God cud have kept silent but he chose to act and to

> prove some point to the world.

 

There is only one God. Different identities are due to duality.

God does not produce any distinction or attributes. We confer it upon

God.This is what I was driving at.

 

Regards,

Guruprasad