[Y-Indology] Sanketis

[Guest guest]

> > 2. Advaita Vedaanta as per the orthodoxy is not open to everybody

> but

> > only male braahmanas and hence the philosophical alleigence is

> > not "on the display".

> >

>

> Are you implying that among the Smarta's, the female of the species

> is more philosophical than the male?

 

LS I've no clue how you derived that conclusion.

 

> What legend would that be? The dictionary seems to give many more

> meanings to the word Smarta in addition to the one you mention.

Even

> today, the word Smarta in the term 'Smarta vicharam' is used by the

> Nambuthiris in the sense of an inquiry according to the SmRti's.

 

But smaartha vichaaram does not necessarily equate with a smaartha

way of life. Even as Atma Vichaaram does not mean the traditional

Advaitic way of life.

 

> This may be partially true in recent decades of the urban brahmanas

> alone. But I don't see any reason to believe this was the case in

the

> centuries before the 20th.

 

My parents families came from Karur and Vengalathur near Kaanchi -

both of them have always held alleigence to one sankara matha or

another.

 

I think people should realize that theory is often contradicted by

reality - especially more so in "Indology".

 

>I may be wrong but the need for an acharya

> does not seem essential to a traditional Smartha brahmana, as it is

> for a Srivaishnava or a Saiva.

 

According to the traditional Advaitic path a guru is very, very

essential.

 

>(Even the more Smartha-like Srivaishnavas claimed themselves to be

>swayamacharyas).

 

However "smaartha like" still they're not smaarthaas.

 

>The Sankarite acharya, for example, has no salvific role. There is

>no formal rite of passage enjoined for a Smarta which involves

>taking refuge under an acharya either.

 

That's because Advaita is not "Ubhaya" Vedaanta. Only very, very few

people can qualify for the Advaitic path. So of the entire smaartha

community only a miniscule is permitted to embrace sanyaasa by the

aachaarya. The rest try to live dharmic lives so that they can aspire

for moksha in future lives.

 

See it depends on how you define smaartha. If the definition

according to you means "one who lives by the smrithis" you can

classify anybody under it - but such an interpretation is only

theoretical. In reality there's a tradition to it which includes only

a select number of people.

 

> One can therefore see that, in history, Sankaracharya matha's, as

> acharyic establishment for Smartas, have been peripheral to the

> Smarta community. It is also quite obvious from the writings of the

> many modern Sankarite acharyas. In a long chapter titled 'Guru' in

> the transcribed discourses of the Kanchi acharya, there is a

> discussion of Sankara and the Kanchi Matha in relation to the

> community. (cf Deivattin Kural, Vol 6, pp. 177-220). But even here

> you don't find the claim that all Smarta's had acharyas' nor even

> that all Smarta's in Tamilnadu owed their allegiance to either

> Kanchi or Sringeri.

 

But does it say it is not so?

 

The smaartha ideology allows a lot of independance - but that doesn't

mean it is divorced from tradition. The shankaraachaaryas serve as

instructors on dharma and brahman. But the information regarding the

dharma is available in books and also is learned from familial

tradition and wise men of the society. So those who do not qualify

from moksha can live their dharmic lives quite independent of any

specific instruction from the aachaaryas. But in complicated matters

they would seek the advice of the aachaaryaas. But for advice on

moksha the instruction from an aachaarya is essential.