[t'venkatam] Brahminical mutts -Subject closed for discussion

[Guest guest]

Dear "sarva-sri" Sadagopan Iyengar, V.Sadagopan and

other friends,

 

As I had warned in my very first mail on this subject

of discussion, this is such a emotive issue it will be

impossible to hold a debate on it without the danger

of easily descending to some level of acrimony.

 

It is easy to attack and rubbish the writer of the TOI

article, Sri.Srinivasa Raghvan, especially when he is

not around to defend himself. But the article itself

(call it "re-hash" or whatever you want), and some of

the stark facts/realities it places before the public

view, simply cannot be brushed away. Facts are facts.

 

I hold no brief for all of the TOI article but only

some parts of it. I regard myself as a faithful and

grateful member of the Ahobila Mutt. Hence, I would

like to bring discussions on this sensitive subject to

an immediate close because it will serve no further

useful purpose to debate it further. I'm quite sure

that if allowed further, it will invaribaly lead (as

it usually always does in all these SriVaishnava

cyber-forums) to hot-tempered accusations and

counter-accusations between members on grounds of

"AchArya-apachAram", "BhAgavatha-apachAram", this,

that and much more.

 

However, I will take the liberty to leave just a few

thoughts for all of you to ponder over:

 

(1) Sankara and Ramanuja were spiritual dynamos. They

were "AchAryAs" who did not limit themselves to a

religious mission alone but to strong social, popular

causes too. Their imprint on society at large was

deep, wide and enduring. "AchAryAs" who came after

them were different. They kept distancing themselves

from common humanity until finally by the beginning of

the 20th-century AD, their spiritual sway extended

little beyond cloistered "mutts", "ashram-s" and

communities seeking exclusive identity. In other

words, while Sankara and Ramanuja sought to be

"inclusive" and "expanding", succeeding "AchAryAs"

went into reverse gear -- they became more and more

"insular" and "exclusive".

 

(2) "AchAryAs" like Sri Ramanuja and Sankara had what

might be called "spiritual charisma". They wielded

enormous personal influence and appeal amidst mass

following from all walks of life, not just a

particular community. Succeeding "AchAryAs", although

many of them were good and tall leaders, did not have

such charisma.

 

(3) "AchAryAs" like Sri Ramanuja and Sankara, wherever

they went, somehow always succeeded in bridging social

divides like caste, class, education and income.

(Ramanuja's appeal to tribals even in the Melkote

region where he was in exile for 12 long years is a

fact of recorded history.) Succeeding "AchAryAs"

failed to close the gap. Instead, the gap became only

more accentuated over the centuries.

 

(4) To use a phrase from the TOI article of Sri

Srinivasa Raghvan, "non-brahmin "mutts" or godmen"

today command ever growing following. It has never

ceased to amaze me. They have virtually no tradition,

no "parampara", no "sampradAya", no Veda, no

philosophy, no theology, no religious literature

really worth speaking of.... And yet millions of

common people in India and abroad seek and find solace

in them. We should pause and ask why? There is no

point in saying "It is all kali-yuga at work". Is it

really only because of "the politics of money-power"

and the "money-power of politics"? If that is the only

argument we have to put forward, then aren't we

casting a grievous moral slur on thousands of people

who flock to such spiritual leaders? Are we not being

arrogant and self-righteous when we make such

statements? Are the millions of people (some being

Brahmin and SriVaishnava too amongst them!) who

embrace ("hug"?!) these "non-brahmin godmen or

god-women" such moral idiots and spiritual philistines

that they would sell their souls for a few pieces of

the proverbial silver?

 

(5) "AchAryAs" like Sankara and Ramanuja became the

beloved of the masses not so much for their scriptural

erudition, religious piety or intellectual

accomplishments as for their real human compassion.

They were compassionate men and they made doubly sure

that they reached out in many different ways to the

outside world. The world felt their compassion

palpably and received it too in as many ways.

Succeeding "AchAryAs", although perhaps not lacking in

compassion, somehow never seemed to be able to convey

it in any positive or concrete way, to the rest of the

world. Ramanuja and Sankara were great communicators

in every sense of the word. Succeeding "achAryAs" were

not quite such consummate communicators. Although at

heart most of them were compassionate men, still it

was chiefly for their intellectual or literary

accomplishments, or for their personal piety or

"AchAra-anushtAna" that they came to be remembered and

venerated by their limited following.

 

(6) It is a very common adage in the political field

that some leaders are born, others are made and yet

many more have leadership thrust upon them. That

adage, I opine, holds equally true in the spiritual

world too, whether you like it or not, and whether

palatable to you or not. Once again, fact is fact.

"AchAryAs" like Sri Ramanuja and Sankara were born

spiritual leaders. Succeeding "AchAryAs", well, you

could say, some became spiritual leaders while many,

sadly, had leadership only thrust upon them.

 

(7) I can sympathize why some of us become so vehement

in condemning the TOI article. It is testimony to our

professed loyalty and devotion to our respective

"mutt-s", "AchAryAs" and "sampradAya". I too would

take serious umbrage if somebody were to say less than

nice things about my "mutt" or "AchArya". But we

should appreciate that Truth has no sympathy for

sentimentalism. To stick our heads in the mud and

refuse to see fact and reality is to imitate the

ostrich-bird. To keep saying that everything is fine

with us, our community and our spiritual institutions

and that we are Brahmins and therefore can do no

wrong, and it is all the "brahmin-bashers" around us

who are to blame for everything....etc. well, that to

me sounds more "rubbish" than the TOI article itself.

 

Regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________

India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://.shaadi.com

[Guest guest]

Dear "sarva-sri" Sadagopan Iyengar, V.Sadagopan and

other friends,

 

As I had warned in my very first mail on this subject

of discussion, this is such a emotive issue it will be

impossible to hold a debate on it without the danger

of easily descending to some level of acrimony.

 

It is easy to attack and rubbish the writer of the TOI

article, Sri.Srinivasa Raghvan, especially when he is

not around to defend himself. But the article itself

(call it "re-hash" or whatever you want), and some of

the stark facts/realities it places before the public

view, simply cannot be brushed away. Facts are facts.

 

I hold no brief for all of the TOI article but only

some parts of it. I regard myself as a faithful and

grateful member of the Ahobila Mutt. Hence, I would

like to bring discussions on this sensitive subject to

an immediate close because it will serve no further

useful purpose to debate it further. I'm quite sure

that if allowed further, it will invaribaly lead (as

it usually always does in all these SriVaishnava

cyber-forums) to hot-tempered accusations and

counter-accusations between members on grounds of

"AchArya-apachAram", "BhAgavatha-apachAram", this,

that and much more.

 

However, I will take the liberty to leave just a few

thoughts for all of you to ponder over:

 

(1) Sankara and Ramanuja were spiritual dynamos. They

were "AchAryAs" who did not limit themselves to a

religious mission alone but to strong social, popular

causes too. Their imprint on society at large was

deep, wide and enduring. "AchAryAs" who came after

them were different. They kept distancing themselves

from common humanity until finally by the beginning of

the 20th-century AD, their spiritual sway extended

little beyond cloistered "mutts", "ashram-s" and

communities seeking exclusive identity. In other

words, while Sankara and Ramanuja sought to be

"inclusive" and "expanding", succeeding "AchAryAs"

went into reverse gear -- they became more and more

"insular" and "exclusive".

 

(2) "AchAryAs" like Sri Ramanuja and Sankara had what

might be called "spiritual charisma". They wielded

enormous personal influence and appeal amidst mass

following from all walks of life, not just a

particular community. Succeeding "AchAryAs", although

many of them were good and tall leaders, did not have

such charisma.

 

(3) "AchAryAs" like Sri Ramanuja and Sankara, wherever

they went, somehow always succeeded in bridging social

divides like caste, class, education and income.

(Ramanuja's appeal to tribals even in the Melkote

region where he was in exile for 12 long years is a

fact of recorded history.) Succeeding "AchAryAs"

failed to close the gap. Instead, the gap became only

more accentuated over the centuries.

 

(4) To use a phrase from the TOI article of Sri

Srinivasa Raghvan, "non-brahmin "mutts" or godmen"

today command ever growing following. It has never

ceased to amaze me. They have virtually no tradition,

no "parampara", no "sampradAya", no Veda, no

philosophy, no theology, no religious literature

really worth speaking of.... And yet millions of

common people in India and abroad seek and find solace

in them. We should pause and ask why? There is no

point in saying "It is all kali-yuga at work". Is it

really only because of "the politics of money-power"

and the "money-power of politics"? If that is the only

argument we have to put forward, then aren't we

casting a grievous moral slur on thousands of people

who flock to such spiritual leaders? Are we not being

arrogant and self-righteous when we make such

statements? Are the millions of people (some being

Brahmin and SriVaishnava too amongst them!) who

embrace ("hug"?!) these "non-brahmin godmen or

god-women" such moral idiots and spiritual philistines

that they would sell their souls for a few pieces of

the proverbial silver?

 

(5) "AchAryAs" like Sankara and Ramanuja became the

beloved of the masses not so much for their scriptural

erudition, religious piety or intellectual

accomplishments as for their real human compassion.

They were compassionate men and they made doubly sure

that they reached out in many different ways to the

outside world. The world felt their compassion

palpably and received it too in as many ways.

Succeeding "AchAryAs", although perhaps not lacking in

compassion, somehow never seemed to be able to convey

it in any positive or concrete way, to the rest of the

world. Ramanuja and Sankara were great communicators

in every sense of the word. Succeeding "achAryAs" were

not quite such consummate communicators. Although at

heart most of them were compassionate men, still it

was chiefly for their intellectual or literary

accomplishments, or for their personal piety or

"AchAra-anushtAna" that they came to be remembered and

venerated by their limited following.

 

(6) It is a very common adage in the political field

that some leaders are born, others are made and yet

many more have leadership thrust upon them. That

adage, I opine, holds equally true in the spiritual

world too, whether you like it or not, and whether

palatable to you or not. Once again, fact is fact.

"AchAryAs" like Sri Ramanuja and Sankara were born

spiritual leaders. Succeeding "AchAryAs", well, you

could say, some became spiritual leaders while many,

sadly, had leadership only thrust upon them.

 

(7) I can sympathize why some of us become so vehement

in condemning the TOI article. It is testimony to our

professed loyalty and devotion to our respective

"mutt-s", "AchAryAs" and "sampradAya". I too would

take serious umbrage if somebody were to say less than

nice things about my "mutt" or "AchArya". But we

should appreciate that Truth has no sympathy for

sentimentalism. To stick our heads in the mud and

refuse to see fact and reality is to imitate the

ostrich-bird. To keep saying that everything is fine

with us, our community and our spiritual institutions

and that we are Brahmins and therefore can do no

wrong, and it is all the "brahmin-bashers" around us

who are to blame for everything....etc. well, that to

me sounds more "rubbish" than the TOI article itself.

 

Regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________

India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://.shaadi.com

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

I am sorry I did not make my intention clear in my

communication. The subject is closed on the

Tiruvenkatam Group only in so far as my participation

goes. Members however are free to debate it amongst

themselves on the List. I would only be too happy to

learn from their exchanges.

 

Those who want to share views/opinions with me through

personal mail are welcome. But the discussion will

have to be impersonal and impartial.

 

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

Regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

--- k ananthapadmanabhan <krisanantha

wrote:

Respected Sirs,

> 1. I am aware that you have the privilege to close a

> subject for discussion whenever you deem it fit, in

> your capacity as the moderator of the group. However

> I don’t think it is fair on your part to make your

> detailed argument & then close the topic for

> discussion without giving others an opportunity to

> respond. On the other hand you could have simply

> closed the discussion, which would have been fair.

>

 

 

 

________

India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://.shaadi.com