Fwd: "gnyAna-vairAgya-bhushaNam": Part-2- A clarification

[Guest guest]

tiruvengadam, "Sudarshan M.K." <sampathkumar_2000>

wrote:

tiruvengadam, "Sudarshan M.K." <sampathkumar_2000>

wrote:

> Dear friends,

> Continuing from the earlier post, the human values that Swami

> Venkatanathan stood for in his lifetime were mainly 2 in number viz:

>

> (1) "gnyAnam" and

> (2) "vairAgyam"

 

> At the time Swami wrote the "vairAgya-panchakam" he was living in

> Kanchipuram. His personal and social circumstances were rather

> difficult at that time. His income was meagre and erratic. The

needs > of his family were growing. A career in full-time poetry,

philosophy > and theological research in which he was engaged, in

those days as it > is even now, was not exactly the best hope in life

for a man with a > family to feed and protect. Venkatanathan was

virtually begging in > the streets of Kanchi for food. If the

practice

of "unchavrutti" > (begging for food) had not been ordained by the

Vedic 'sAstrA-s' as > being proper and quite becoming of an orthodox

Brahmin as > Venkatanathan was,one would have called his plight

either

pathetic,> or un-dignified, or most probably, both.

 

 

Dear friends,

A couple of members have written to me about the above passage of

mine. They sound a little uncomfortable with the description by me of

Swami Venkatanathan's plight being "either pathetic, or un-dignified,

or most probably, both". They have requested me to clarify.

 

As I indicated above, in the Vedic charter of conduct in those days,

"unchavrutti" (begging for food) was perfectly respectable for

orthodox Brahmins. So if Swami Venkatanathan was able to subsist in

Kanchi thanks to the tradition of "unchavrutti", there was nothing

"un-dignified or pathetic" about it from the stand-point of 'sAstra'.

 

What was "pathetic" or "un-dignified" nonetheless about

Venkatanathan's "unchavrutti" was that the citizens or members of the

SriVaishnava community in Kanchi at that time sat back and allowed

things to come to such a pass and that someone as noble as Swami was

reduced to circumstances compelling him to go around begging for food.

 

There is a lesson in all this that we in these modern times must

learn:

 

Even in the best of times when people generally respect and cherish

tradition and the past, persons engaged in religious learning and

spiritual endeavour tend to be neglected by their communities. The

callousness of a community easily renders the plight of "mumukshu-s"

very difficult indeed. It is then that we will witness noble but

simple souls reduced to penury and harship. It is then that we may

find them struggling to make a livelihood by means such as

"unchavrutti".

 

"unchavrutti" actually brought no disgrace whatosoever to Swami

Venkatanathan personally. It did bring pathetic indignity however to

the whole community of Kanchi in those times since they'd let such a

sorry fate befall one of their illustrious sons.

 

The lesson for us is this: Our present-day Vaishnava communities too

should ensure that its Venkatanathans do not have to live by

"unchavrutti". Otherwise we too might fit adiyane's description of

being "either pathetic, or un-dignified, or most probably, both".

 

Adiyane hopes the above clarifies matters.

 

Thanks and regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

--- murali sampath <ingit wrote:

> Sri Sudarshan,

While unchavruthi was > essential, Swami

> was contended with his way of living including unchavruthi.

>

> Swami was not begging for food. He was only leading a life that was

> expected > of all Brahmins per unchavruthi. Swami chose to live

this lifestyle > and not > as portrayed by you. If there was

something pathethic around the > behavior of> the people of Kanchi or

their neglect of Swami, that is something > different

> and not to be confused around Swami's austere life and practices.

>

> Murali Sampath

 

Dear Sri.Murali Sampath,

 

Thank your for your comments.

May I in turn seek some clarifications:

 

You say (quote): "Swami was not begging for food. He was only leading

a life that was expected of all Brahmins per unchavruthi. Swami chose

to live this lifestyle and not as portrayed by you".

 

Should we understand this to mean that in those days there were

Brahmins who were quite well-off but still chose to go around doing

"unchavrutti"? This seems very unlikely to me. ANd I refuse to

believe our great ancestors were illogical.

 

If 'unchavrutti' means "begging for food" why shouldn't we take it to

mean simply what it means? Why the additional and needlessly fine

distinction of 2 types i.e. (a) one undertaken out of necessity and

(b) one of choice? One being real begging and the other being only

'ceremonial' begging? One being an inferior sort and the other

superior? Are there any grounds for this?

 

Adiyane has read from Vedic history that 'unchavrutti' was generally

prescribed for 'brahmachari' students and their Vedic teacher in a

'guru-kulam'. They were expected to go around begging for food now

and then looking for charity amongst the community. After they

returned to the Master's house the grains would be collected by the

'dharma-patni' of the Master. She would cook the rice and first serve

the students and her own children. Then she would offer the rest to

her husband. If there was anything left she would consume it herself.

This was only one way in which 'brahmachari' students in the Vedic

times paid 'guru-dakshina' to their Master and his family. Begging

also taught them some valuable lessons of life. It taught them how to

be humble in receiving. It helped to gradually erase their ego...

"ahambhAvam" and "ahamkAram". It also taught them that a guru's

'dharma-patni' sacrificed herself in their interest as much as the

guru himself. And so women were as important in Vedic society as the

men.

 

Thus, as adiyane understands it, 'unchavrutti' was primarily a way in

which the Vedic 'gurukula' system was designed to be supported by the

rest of society. Brahmin teachers who otherwise could never afford to

keep so many brahmacharin students at home and feed them, were thus

encouraged by 'sAstrA' to undertake 'unchavruti'. But if the Vedic

Master was a person of independent means, or if he enjoyed other

means of social support for his 'guru-kulam' (say, a concession by

the local king) he was not encouraged to go out on 'unchavrutti'.

 

Adiyane believes strongly that there was a strong practical and

social basis for 'unchavruti'. There was nothing inherently

sanctimonious or virtuous about the practice.

 

So, nothing is really detracted from Swami Desikan's 'vairAgyam' or

greatness when we say that he lived by 'unchavrutti'. Adiyane has

portrayed nothing, therefore, that is not as per what is already

recorded in the available biographies of his.

 

You also write that (quote): "If there was something pathethic around

the > behavior of> the people of Kanchi or their neglect of Swami,

that is something > different > and not to be confused around Swami's

austere life and practices".

 

This is where adiyane begs to differ. I think it is very pertinent to

ask how in a holy place like Kanchi, a great centre of religion and

philosophy in those days (rather than silk-sarees as it is in these

days), why in those great times a noble person like Swami Desikan had

to resort to 'unchavruti'? Why couldn't the community at that time

offer support to one of its brightest stars so that he might never

have to resort to 'unchavrutti'? It tells us something about the

history of those times, doesn't it?

 

If in our present times and place, hypothetically, a great and noble

soul, highly venerated and loved, and living amongst us, were to

somehow subsist only by going around 'unchavrutti' in the streets...

would we not then all hang our heads in shame? Would the sight not

then be "pathetic or un-dignified or both"?

 

This is simply the point adiyane was trying to make and nothing else.

 

Trust this matter stands clarified.

 

Thanks and regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

 

NEW from GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.

http://geocities./ps/info1

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Sudarshan / Sri. Sampath Kumar,

 

At the outset, I do not wish to debate on this forum

back and forth much to the discomfort of all. Time and

again the Moderator has written not to use this forum

for such debatable issues. This is the only reason that

I chose to email you separately in my previous email and

not to the address.

 

Let us abide by the Moderator's appeal and requests. If

you wish to discuss the above, please address it offline

and not .

 

To All Members -> Please note that my

original response to the above subject was written

offline to Sri. Sudarshan and not meant for debate on

.

 

Regards,

 

Murali Sampath

[Guest guest]

--- ingit wrote:

> Dear Sri. Sudarshan / Sri. Sampath Kumar,

>

> Let us abide by the Moderator's appeal and requests. If

> you wish to discuss the above, please address it offline

> and not .

Murali Sampath

>

 

Dear Sri.Murali Sampath,

Very good. I look forward to continuing our discussions off-line.

Regards,

Sudarshan

 

 

 

NEW from GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.

http://geocities./ps/info1