Thread: temple priests

ASVIYER:
Yeah, I would like to see Mr. Karunanidhi decreeing that Muslims cannot have more than one wife. Don't you know he himself has officially two wives (God knows how many illegitimate ones)!!
This is laughable!!

Originally Posted by ASVIYER

Yes i agree to Nagu, Karunanidhi is doing is this for his vote bank, why are they trying to change the structure of the religion, ask him to ristrict a Mohammadan to marry 4 times , let him bring this change and then he can talk about non brahmins being priests in the temples

Dear respected Anbu:
Thank you for clarifying the issue. However, I will not buy this 'acharam' and if the acharyas are following this, then they are 200% wrong in the eyes of God.
Before I go any further, let me say that I AM NOT a secularist (you can see I am a member of this orgn.,) or Universalist (I honestly don't know what this means) and am a staunch Brahmin. Shaving a woman's head once she becomes a widow is pure chauvanistic; how is it a man doesn't shave his head when his wife dies? He gets to participate in all the functions and have a good time, whereas the woman is shunned and sent to a dark corner. What kind of society is ours if we treat our women like this? Thank god, my grandfather didn't follow this so-called 'acharam' and had my mother shave her head when my father passed away. That was more than 65 years ago. Has this been mentioned in any of our Vedas? What has Dharma got to do with this discriminatory practice against our own women? Does the Acharya not see widowers? Of course, he does!

Yes, I firmly and categorically state that the Acharyas MUST stop this inhumane practice of insisting that widows should shave their heads. He is not God; he is merely a messenger of God and is mortal. For heaven's sake, what kind of message are we sending to our children? If we continue to have these barbaric practices, I am terribly afraid that the Hindu religion will be teetering towards sunset.
'Acharams' are supposed to be for the good of our people; not just some religious dogmas that one follows rigidly.

I am sorry, Mr. Anbu; I will not subscribe to this nonsense. I am actually very surprised that this is coming from a scholarly gentleman like you. I would like to hear from other members on this subject.

Next thing I will hear is that we should practice 'sati' because that was also an 'acharam'.

Shaving a woman's head:
I would like to add the following to my posting:
I wonder how my fellow members would feel if their daughter (God forbid) who is young (say in her 20's or 30's) becomes a widow. Will they follow the so-called 'acharam' and get her head shaved?
I am posting this question in sincerity: Who came up with these 'Acharams' that we, Brahmins must follow? Who wrote them up? Definitely, no woman was involved!!

Dear Silverfox,

I hear your views and no one is forcing you to accept this. I don't think Acharyal could be forced to accept a new rule for his traditional acts. When you say " Next thing I will hear is that we should practice 'sati' because that was also an 'acharam'" you have gone a bit too far in your assumptions, I am sorry to say.

Acharyal or anybody else in the world is NOT forcing any young or old widow to shave her head. I thought I made that clear. Pl. be fair in making such statements.

Hi,

I am new to this site. I just happened to see this website when I was browsing thru google.

This site needs to be popularised. It would be great to bring all tamil brahmins under one forum and increase the membership of this website.

First and foremost, we would need to send this link among all our tamil brahmin friends in schools , colleges , work place etc.

Let us bring together all tamil brahmins

Dear Silverfox,

I am the one that Sri Anbu characterizes as a 'secularist' when I questioned his connection of KarmaPhala to the birth.

I agree with the concept of Varna and the Varnashrama Dharma. But, I can not agree with the effect of one's Karma Phala (effects from previous birth actions), connect to your life in this life as a 'Brahmin'. This totally takes out 'free will' as a determinent to one's conduct.

The Maha Periaval did observe traditions and there was a reason for that. We have a raging debate going on about 'Varna and Dharma - an interpretation for today's life' under the Miscellaneous section of the Kanchi Forum about the same topic. You will learn there that the context makes the difference. Please do not be so quick to condemn the teachings of a Great Sage.

While I agree with Sri Anbu in the contents of his postings, I do not agree with him on his inferences. And for this, he has been saying things here about his experiences at Kanchi Forum, which are patently untrue. And, if any of you want, I can prove it.

Pranams,
KRS

Originally Posted by Anbu

Dear Silverfox,

I hear your views and no one is forcing you to accept this. I don't think Acharyal could be forced to accept a new rule for his traditional acts. When you say " Next thing I will hear is that we should practice 'sati' because that was also an 'acharam'" you have gone a bit too far in your assumptions, I am sorry to say.

Acharyal or anybody else in the world is NOT forcing any young or old widow to shave her head. I thought I made that clear. Pl. be fair in making such statements.

Dear Mr. Anbu:
Thank you for your response. However, I am afraid you are taking things out of context. The whole purpose of my posting was NOT for my own sake but for the community; more so for our women. The Acharyal is our guru and if he himself shuns our ladies because they wouldn't (or didn't) shave their heads, then how can he claim himself to be a 'Jagadguru'?
Also, shall I infer that you agree with the tradition of shaving a woman's head if she becomes a widow? You keep saying that 'noone is forcing anybody'; but the argument is not 'forcing someone' but the Acharyal not seeing a widow whose head is not shaved.
Please, I apologize if any of my questions offended you but I was sincere when I asked the question - if shaving a woman's head is 'acharam' so also the practice of 'sati', which was abandoned, thanks to the British.

Nevertheless, the central theme of my posting is that Acharyal implicitly forces widowed women to shave their heads; otherwise, he will not see them and bless them.
I thought this forum has been started for uplifting, advancing and reforming our Brahmin society. Until all of us do our soul-search and own up to our shortcomings, nothing good will come out of this forum. We can write about our glorious past, the Vedas, and all that good stuff until the cows come home. But it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if it is not going to help put our women on par.

Mr. KRS:
[The Maha Periaval did observe traditions and there was a reason for that. We have a raging debate going on about 'Varna and Dharma - an interpretation for today's life' under the Miscellaneous section of the Kanchi Forum about the same topic. You will learn there that the context makes the difference. Please do not be so quick to condemn the teachings of a Great Sage.]
Based on your posting, you certainly don't fit the bill of 'secularist'; otherwise, you would agree with me!!! (even though I hate secularism). I hope Mr. Anbu doesn't label anybody who wouldn't agree with his views. It is like the US Republicans labeling anybody who criticized the Bush Administration going to war on Iraq as 'unpatriotic'!!
I plead ignorance; I did not get a good understanding of what you were trying to convey. Certainly by any extent, I am not 'condemning' any teachings of the Acharyal; I am a disciple and I am too stupid to 'condemn' the Maha Periyaval. At the same time, if he is to decree (or teaching) that in order to see a widow and to bless her, she must shave her head, then I have a problem with that. God did not issue these rules.
Why are you, gentlemen, not answering me when I ask you -- 1. how come we treat a widower different than a widow? 2. Will you do it if it comes to your own daughter who becomes a widow, since you all believe in tradition and 'acharams' (only in this context)?
Thanks

Hi all,

I think Silverfox raised an important question: Status of women. For those who have been closer to traditions it will be harder to take a step back and look at the issue objectively. But I hope that you'd agree when I express that simply because a thing is difficult to do it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. I too have heard stories about the refusal of Acharya (Mahaperiyava) to see widowed women. The version I heard was that he was willing to speak to them if there was a cloth screen separating him from the woman in question. When I asked my family members about this strange custom the reply I got was that Periyava takes care to see that he does not become an object of temptation for the widowed woman who has come to seek his blessings.

At the time I didn't know how to respond to this but now I recognize the absurdity of such a statement. If widowed women want to get 'tempted' I am pretty sure they wouldn't bother coming all the way to see Periyava. To assume that all widowed women are seeking gratification from monks is completely ridiculous.

I have wondered several times about why the Kanchi Mutt does not give primary roles to women - afterall Goddess Kamakshi is a woman! If the Acharyas have not mastered the art of Divine Love for all human beings which knows no gender, caste or creed then do we deserve to call them acharyas? I hope this question does not offend anybody but women in general seem to get the bad end of the bargain not just in seeing Acharyas but in religious activities in general.

The point that KRS raised about the idea of Karma-Palan: If one believes in reincarnation one cannot but believe in Karma palan. I think the idea of Karma is frequently misunderstood as being a trap - and a fatalistic one. My understanding of the teachings of Hindu Philosophy suggests that the actions of your previous life sets the conditions under which your new actions should be produced. But the new actions one produces is completely and totally under one's control. Free will here refers to the choices the individual makes - a choice between leading an ego-based engagement with Maya or deciding that no matter what the circumstantial influence is one's thoughts and deeds are based in accordance with Divine guidance.

The second choice coincides with the idea of surrender. It does not mean that we have to sit passively - that would be escapism. It means doing the best job one can under every circumstance with keenness, attention, joy and enthusiasm while recognizing that the consequences of those actions are in God's hands.

In fact most of the Hindu scriptures encourage attunement with one's own intuition (the voice within) to guide a person through every situation. There are no prescriptions. Each situation is unique and the level of maturity/spiritual advancement of the person is different. So solutions will differ. Going after the right solution here becomes Free will. And if free will is practiced right all Karmic influences can be broken away.

Dear Chintana:

Thank you for understanding where I am coming from. Yes, I am questioning the treatment of our women. And, Hindu religion is the ONLY religion which recognizes a GODDESS. That reminds of a story I used to hear when I was growing up as a boy in India. This is about some poet Nakkeerar in Madurai telling Lord Shiva that even if he was the Supreme Lord, he was still at fault!! (I forget the whole story!)

I rest my case.