about brahmins

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sirs,

Iyers worship ALL Gods in Hindu Pantheon. Your statement is only partially correct. Saivas consider Vishnu along with Shiva as a deity worthy of worship. I do not think (please correct me if I am wrong), that the Vaishnavas think so with regards to worshipping Shiva.

I am correcting only the 'syntax' here. In my opinion, these differences don't make much sense.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Chora Iyer Ka]

No one has answered my question on Kanchi Sankarachcharya (periyaval) not seeing widows. Why is everybody silent? Look, guys, unless we self-examine ourselves and talk about our faults and short-comings, nothing good is going to come out. I would like to know if this was true.

Terrible and retrograde. The Catholic Church has stoppped the inquisition, hasn't it? Are not Widows part of the Brahman? We must discard the injustices of the past, and maintain only what is great and good.

 

[pazhani]

hi naras,

a correction. iyers are advaitins. those who are exclusively saivites follow either visihtadvaita or dvaita. Iyengars are visishtadvaitins believing in supremacy of sriman narayana.

cheers

 

[GGR]

Hello All, I am an Iyengar. I come from both orthodox and not-so-much-orthodox famiy of Iyengars. Your thoughts are right, Iyengar do worship Vishnu and his Avataars only. Iyengars beleive that Vishnu is the sole way to vaikuntum.

Currently, I am reading Rig Veda (even though I belong to Yajur) and the theory of Advaitham. Once I have read a fare amount of it and have some understanding, I will be able to better comment on these subjects.

Having read other books about our phylosophy, I have mixed beleifs/feelings in the lineage of Iyers and Iyengars, as there is a fine line between them and that line is pretty much blurred for now.

Having said all these, I should tell you that my family has always gone to all temples, may it be shakti or Vinayaka or Shiva or Vishnu and we feel the same way about all deites. But we do see a marked inclination towards Rama-navami and Krishna-Janmaashtami than Shiva-Ratri.

Coming to US has opened my eyes even further to view the difference between Iyers and Iyengars as so small and in-consequencial. Because seeing the different Christian religions or beleifs, I think our difference are much saner than theirs.

-GGR

 

[KRS]

Terrible and retrograde. The Catholic Church has stoppped the inquisition, hasn't it? Are not Widows part of the Brahman? We must discard the injustices of the past, and maintain only what is great and good.

Dear Sri Silverfox Ji,

I do not want to let this question go unanswered, as it once troubled me also. My mother was a young widow and lo and behold, Maha Periaval once visited my home when I was ten years old. And my mom was kept away from having a dharshan.

I posted earlier about the differences between a Maharishi (like Sri Ramana) and an ordained head of a Peetham (like Maha Periaval). While both are souls who have merged, MahaPeriaval distintctly saw His role as different, following the dictats of the Shastras. In fact at one point He says to the effect that according to his lineage He has no power to alter the teachings of the Shastras.

This is where the interesting question arises. Are not the Shastras meant to be changed with the mores of the times? Any Shastra in our religion is supposed to only reflect the mores of the current times.

So, what gives?

I think the great Rishi, the Maha Periaval, with His unlimited compassion, was teaching us how to hold up the greatest Dharma, the 'Sanatana Dharma'.
He had no prjudice nor did He have any meanness in Him. So, this can only be the conclusion one can come to.

This is just my own view.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[NARAS]

sirs- shastras are sanatana i.e. permanent. they cannot be tampered. if individual whims and fancies are allowed into shastras, shastras will forfeit their sacredness and will cease to be shastras. shastras are like history. can you change history as per your individual preference on the excuse of keeping in touch with times?

 

[silverfox]

Aren't widows part of our community?

Dear KRS:
Since I have been dragged into this, I guess I will have to respond!! I had raised this question almost 6 months ago (I think). Nevertheless, with no malice in my heart and with greatest respect to you, I am sorry to say that your posting is nothing but obfuscation. The question was: Why did the swamaji refuse to see the widows? You keep talking about Sanatana Dharma .. does the Sanatana Dharma advocate ostracizing our widows? If Mahaperiaval went along with that, then I say it was utterly and completely wrong and I don't see any compassion on his part.

Dear Sri Silverfox Ji,

I do not want to let this question go unanswered, as it once troubled me also. My mother was a young widow and lo and behold, Maha Periaval once visited my home when I was ten years old. And my mom was kept away from having a dharshan.

I posted earlier about the differences between a Maharishi (like Sri Ramana) and an ordained head of a Peetham (like Maha Periaval). While both are souls who have merged, MahaPeriaval distintctly saw His role as different, following the dictats of the Shastras. In fact at one point He says to the effect that according to his lineage He has no power to alter the teachings of the Shastras.

This is where the interesting question arises. Are not the Shastras meant to be changed with the mores of the times? Any Shastra in our religion is supposed to only reflect the mores of the current times.

So, what gives?

I think the great Rishi, the Maha Periaval, with His unlimited compassion, was teaching us how to hold up the greatest Dharma, the 'Sanatana Dharma'.
He had no prjudice nor did He have any meanness in Him. So, this can only be the conclusion one can come to.

This is just my own view.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[kashyap]

Dear KRS:
Why did the swamaji refuse to see the widows? You keep talking about Sanatana Dharma .. does the Sanatana Dharma advocate ostracizing our widows? If Mahaperiaval went along with that, then I say it was utterly and completely wrong and I don't see any compassion on his part.

My personal views on this:
I will not refuse seeing anyone or eating with anyone. But I am not qualified to make comment on paramacharya. I dont know if that was true or not.
If true I dont know why he did that.
Also even if all of us agree on this how to tell it to the mutt? (maybe they are not doing this anymore).

 

[born_again_aiyer_maami]

Widowhood and the Maha-Periyaval ...

I read KRS-ji's posting with interest - esp. since it is informed by his personal experience.
Yes, traditional Indian society does not accord widows respect - and this is most unfortunate. Our widows were (are?) disempowered and treated as persona non-grata in the traditional Tamil Brahmin milieu. Any society that disenfranchises the lot of some of its members will live to regret it - the widow may be disenfranchised and disempowered, but her children who bore witness to the slights, the insults, and ignominious treatment will never forget it. What goes around, comes around, eventually!
Having said that, it is unclear to me whether the Maha-Periayaval's position was an act of prescience, or an act of cowardice.
I realize that as an ordained head of the Peetham - he may have had his personal position on the issue, and this may/may not have coincided with his position as the head of a Peetham. Any person who holds a public/religious/social office has a role (and a responsibility) that is distinct from his/her personal preferences and predilections e.g. a royal cannot do as he/she pleases (lately they have been acting upon their personal whims, and it is interesting to note that the pertinence of royalty is being called to question!). Royalty are expected to behave in kingly/queenly fashion!
Noblesse oblige!
One may however ask that: If the head of the Peetham vested with enormous social, religious, and spiritual authority does not take a decisive stand on deplorable practices, then who is to bell the cat?
To his credit, it is possible that the Maha-Periyaval foresaw that social change must occur gradually in order to avoid disastrous/unforseen consequences. One may also argue that moral cowardice led him to not rock the boat. He is not here with us today, and we are not in a position to demand an explanation.
A few nights ago I was watching "America at Crossroads" on PBS - and the show featured an extended segment on Irshad Manji, who is a 'Muslim refusenik'. She is an articulate, "in-your-face" Canadian, lesbian, who professes to be a devout Muslim, and asks some penetrating questions about Islam. Her goal is to reform Islam along the lines of the Protestant reformation in Christianity.
Here again I will hark back to that sage and prophet Santayana: "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it".
The Protestant reformation lead to many upheavals: several reformers were burnt at the stake, Henry VIII broke from the Papacy so he could have his marriage annulled, this lead to several people being sent to the Tower of London on grounds of Catholic sympathies/high treason, the schism led to religious persecution and migration to the New World, it was also the basis for the years of bloodshed in Ireland.
The point I am trying to make is: when Manji or Henry VIII try to reconcile their personal preferences with religious/social sanction - then the Imam/Pope/Maha-Periyaval have the option to either grant/withhold sanction. If they grant sanction, they run the risk (certainty?) of a schism in the fold. Schisms lead to conflict, polarization, hate, loss of life and loss of productivity - and so there is this constant tension between the rights of an individual and the greater good of society at large. This seems very apparent in the traditional Hindu/Islamic context (traditionalists/fundamentalists vs the free-thinkers)- but make no mistake, Western (Western style?) democracies that flaunt individual rights, are no more impervious to that same failing. In Tamil Nadu for instance the rights of the minority are infringed ... (somebody is disenfranchised, somebody is disempowered)
Please do not interpret this post as an apology for our community's treatment of widows. It is not.
However, it is intended to provoke debate as to where lies that happy medium between the rights of the individual, and the greater good of society - that question which is universal to all civilizations.

 

[simpleton]

Why do you folks insist on dragging Maha Periaval in Your Dim Viewed Discussions?

I have been reading quite a bit of discussions in this forum over the past few months.

I have generally tended to ignore most of the so-called 'elitist' arguments from the 'pseudo self righteous, socialists/intellectuals(?)'.

However, I am unable to keep quiet when people who are not HIS "Kaal Doosukku's Samanam" insist on dragging Maha Periaval into their discussions - as if they have understood all of life and feel qualified to Question (read 'KUDHARKAM') Saints' practices.

No wonder wise men said 'Yettu Suraikai Karikku Udavadu'.

What is troubling is even some of the Administrators of this site (who purportedly believe in DECORUM) stoop to Abyssmal Depths (I have not seen anywhere in the Mission of this site that it is out to Change the Society) and use Jargonistic terminology (quoting astro physics as if they discovered all of planetary motions and all the sutras in the 'Sanatana Dharma')....

Born again unfortunately has not led to right course it appears and the foxes appear to be doing the 'Veliye Payirai Meyara' act.

There are some really good discussions by some of the learned (and look at their tone and topics of discussion) and it looks like that others have LEARNT NOTHING from them;except perhaps A TON OF CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE.

I am not sure if this is what PRAVEEN had in mind when he started this forum.

Sd. Simpleton

 

[Chintana]

Decorum?

Sri Simpleton,

My responses to you in maroon italics.

I have been reading quite a bit of discussions in this forum over the past few months.

I have generally tended to ignore most of the so-called 'elitist' arguments from the 'pseudo self righteous, socialists/intellectuals(?)'.

Why? You are welcome to challenge anybody's argument, point by point using logic and sound reasoning. Several of us are reasonable and respect clear, substantiated thinking.

However, I am unable to keep quiet when people who are not HIS "Kaal Doosukku's Samanam" insist on dragging Maha Periaval into their discussions - as if they have understood all of life and feel qualified to Question (read 'KUDHARKAM') Saints' practices.

One need not have understood all of life to feel qualified to question (questioning is not always KUDHARKAM; it can simply mean KELVI KETTAL, which is what it means here). Maha Periyaval was definitely a self-realized/God-realized person but he was also a public figure. He was the head of a mutt and had a huge influence of several people. His actions have consequences for the society as people tend/tended to treat him as a model. The minute any person decides/agrees to be a public personality that person willingly or unwillingly takes on the consequence of public scrutiny. So the discussion in this thread is in keeping with that idea, nothing wrong with that.

No wonder wise men said 'Yettu Suraikai Karikku Udavadu'.

This is true of cases where practical application/action is substituted by bookish knowledge. This proverb does not apply in the context of this discussion as posters are talking about how to use the "yedu" to make the best "kari".

What is troubling is even some of the Administrators of this site (who purportedly believe in DECORUM) stoop to Abyssmal Depths (I have not seen anywhere in the Mission of this site that it is out to Change the Society) and use Jargonistic terminology (quoting astro physics as if they discovered all of planetary motions and all the sutras in the 'Sanatana Dharma')....

Firstly, you seem to mean that mere questioning of Periyava's practices is equal to stooping to 'abysmal depths'. Our community has failed to evolve properly because we have failed to question our beliefs and actions and produce convincing answers that we can share with our children. Such blind belief-based practice(s) have never appealed to the minds of our bright, questioning youngsters which is why many of them are so quick to abandon our ways. We are trying to rectifiy that by giving people a chance to talk sensibly about issues they think are important. We want to encourage the practice of thinking on both sides of any issue and then CHOOSE wisely. I am sorry that process is proving to be too sensitive for you.

Secondly there is nothing wrong in quoting astro physics to explain a point. People come with different interests and use words through which they understand the world. If you don't understand something you can always request that person for an explanation.

If you are annoyed that people are being elitistic I don't know if anybody can do anything about that. People in our community who feel they are smarter will have to learn how to be gentler with those they imagine to be less sharper than themselves. Similarly people who feel they are more traditional need to learn how to be kind toward people they imagine to be non-traditional. As long as somebody has a valid point of view and communicates that in a respectful manner within the context of this forum, that is ok.

Born again unfortunately has not led to right course it appears and the foxes appear to be doing the 'Veliye Payirai Meyara' act.

Such comments are easy to make. That is, it is easy to say that something is not good. But it is more difficult and actually more important/useful to say what is good. If you had included another sentence in your comment that states how you would like things to be done that would have been great.

There are some really good discussions by some of the learned (and look at their tone and topics of discussion) and it looks like that others have LEARNT NOTHING from them;except perhaps A TON OF CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE.

No. They have just learnt the value of questioning some of our practices based on blind faith. It is important to ask those questions. We are living in a globalizing world and we need to be able to articulate the values and traditions of our community in ways that are in keeping with today's world. To do that we must have good answers for why we do what we do. Many members of our community have not had too much orientation toward tradition so not all posters share the same level of intensity as far as practising traditions/rituals are concerned.


I am not sure if this is what PRAVEEN had in mind when he started this forum.

All of the administrators form a great team. Nobody does anything without anybody else's knowledge. So please lay your fears to rest.

 

[silverfox]

Dear Mr. (or Ms.) Simpleton:

Since you are referring to me ("and the foxes appear to be doing the 'Veliye Payirai Meyara' act), I need to respond; yet, I don't know what it means - 'Veliye Payirai Meyara". If you translate it in English, maybe perhaps I could respond.
To put it simply, I saw widows were not seen by the late Sri Kanchi Swami. In my opinion, it is wrong and discriminatory, no matter how you cut it. I don't have to know any 'shastras' or 'vedas' to understand and twist things.
Perhaps you are offended by us referring to the Kanji Swamiji; I am sorry you feel that way. However, to me, while he was a great person and all, he still was a mere mortal like the rest of us. So, he WAS fallible and I only bow to GOD and not to any human beings.
p.s. I am expressing my views as an individual.

 

[born_again_aiyer_maami]

Dear Mr/Ms Simpleton,
It appears that you are deeply unhappy and disgruntled by our postings - and perhaps specifically with some of mine.
You write:

Born again unfortunately has not led to right course it appears ...
Sd. Simpleton

If you would kindly point out where I have been misled - then I will reconsider my position, and if convinced, I will be happy to concede that I may be wrong. I am human, and therefore fallible.
Unfortunately I am at a loss as to how I should respond to epithets like "dim-viewed"/"self-righteous"/"Yettu Suraikai" - I am endowed with the view(dim/otherwise!) that my maker bestowed upon me ... What can I say?

 

[simpleton]

Paramacharya was and continues to be 'Nadamadum Deivam'

It is greatly disappointing to see your reply, silverfox.

Paramacharya was 'Nadamadum Deivam' and continues to Light up the life of millions like me. Refer to Sri.Venkataraman's response in one of his earlier discussion columns about 'Deiva Athmas'. I guess that may not mean much to you since it looks like Arrogance appears to have Clouded Your Judgement - for you to say to 'that you bow to no humans'....

It surely is a sad moment when "Arai Vekkadu's" masquerade as Knowledge/Societal exponents!

So long... Someday, people like you may wake up (maybe not).....

Sorry that I chose to join a group of "Arivilis".... Bye.....

 

[mrifan]

No simpleton this

Ah the wonders of the anonymity of the Internet. A construction of the man of straws perhaps? An astute obscurantist under this pseudonym? But well, I am sometimes too cynical.

I have been reading quite a bit of discussions in this forum over the past few months.

I have generally tended to ignore most of the so-called 'elitist' arguments from the 'pseudo self righteous, socialists/intellectuals(?)'.

However, I am unable to keep quiet when people who are not HIS "Kaal Doosukku's Samanam" insist on dragging Maha Periaval into their discussions - as if they have understood all of life and feel qualified to Question (read 'KUDHARKAM') Saints' practices.

No wonder wise men said 'Yettu Suraikai Karikku Udavadu'.

What is troubling is even some of the Administrators of this site (who purportedly believe in DECORUM) stoop to Abyssmal Depths (I have not seen anywhere in the Mission of this site that it is out to Change the Society) and use Jargonistic terminology (quoting astro physics as if they discovered all of planetary motions and all the sutras in the 'Sanatana Dharma')....

Born again unfortunately has not led to right course it appears and the foxes appear to be doing the 'Veliye Payirai Meyara' act.

There are some really good discussions by some of the learned (and look at their tone and topics of discussion) and it looks like that others have LEARNT NOTHING from them;except perhaps A TON OF CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE.

I am not sure if this is what PRAVEEN had in mind when he started this forum.

Sd. Simpleton

 

[KRS]

Sorry Sri Silverfox Ji, I restarted this

Dear Sri Silverfox Ji,

I aplologize for flogging a dead horse. Sri 'Simpleton' Ji (I agree with Sri mrifan Ji's assessment), is representative of some folks I have encountered in a different Forum, where 'Kanchi' issues are discussed. Some of them pegged me as a 'Secularist' and got incensed that I even had the temerity to quote Maha Periaval in support of my arguments. In my opinion these fellows do a great disservice to the Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Matham by laying out their claim as the proper spoke persons of the Sri Matham and our Gurus. They even lie at times to substantiate their ownership. (I am not implying here in anyway that Sri Simpleton Ji belongs to this category).

But we all have to remember that all Shankaracharyas are 'Jagat Gurus'. That is how the Peethams view theselves.

The reason I am raising this point is because, I think you have every right to ask the question you have asked and expect a valid reply from the folks close to the Sri Matham who are in the know. My observation about Him being very compassionate comes from reading His 'Hindu Dharma' book and from my fortunate encounter in Paris of an Iranian born Muslim disciple of His who knew Him over a decade in the last stages of His worldly existence. This is how I know that He had no non-compassionate bone in His body and like you, when several folks ask me about Him (including my own elder brother), I can only provide answers based on my total faith in Him as a saint. (After all He was the one who directed Paul Brunton to Maharishi Ramana) and you would not believe the 'coincidences' that have happened to me personally regarding how I found my Guru in the Maharishi.

(By the way, if you have not read yet Mr. Brunton's book (published in 1940s) 'Mystic India', I would highly recommend you to do so.

But again, I am inviting all the Kanchi followers to address Sri Silverfox Ji's concerns with adequate logical foundation. We owe this to Maha Peraval who always explained our past and present with logic. I am just not in a position to do so logically, excepy my total faith in the Seer tells me that He must have had the proper logic to address this particular issue.

Pranams,
KRS

P.S.: Dear Srimathi Baam Ji,

You must read Srimathi Manji Ji's book 'What is wrong with Islam today', if you have not already. She explores the reason for 'fatwas' issued by the none too educated Imams, and why the central aspect of the religion which encouraged questioning and adaptation to the evolution of a society was hijacked by political interests.

 

[simpleton]

Paramacharya and Kanchi Matam

I really wanted to end this thread (at least from my side of responses). However, I am distressed to read Sri. KRS' dragging me into a controversy (His statement - In my opinion these fellows do a great disservice to the Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Matham by laying out their claim as the proper spoke persons of the Sri Matham and our Gurus. They even lie at times to substantiate their ownership).

Just for records (and to that of observations from MR I FAN as well - me being an Obfuscator hiding under Internet Secrecy! whatever that happens to be), I am NOT A MEMBER OF ANY ORGANIZATION whatsoever (I am sorry that I became one in this) - neither a spokesperson for any Matham. I have stayed away from speaking OUT OF TURN.

I really am a simpleton (an illiterate one still trying to be a sponge in this ocean of Brahmin Fundamentals), who believes in the adage "Kattradu Kai Man Alavu; Kalladadu Ulagalavu".

I hail from Thiruvannamalai and am an Ardent Devotee of Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi and Paramacharya and Current Acharyas of Shankara Matham (in Kanchi). I have no illusions of where I belong, what I do, what I have known, etc. I have lived in this world for 51 years and do not have to Subscribe to Ill Founded Repartees.

Kindly desist from such repugnant and malicious attacks without knowing the context - My earlier responses to some of the participants were based on their limited knowledge about Paramacharya.

Kindly read 'Deivathin Kural' (several volumes) and maybe the light may come up. It is one thing to discuss social issues - it is another thing to Question the Veracity of Sages, Saints and Nadamadum Deivams.

One of the reasons for Brahmins to take such a hit today is because as Brahmins we simply have become ARGUMENTATIVE (under the guise of searching for answers) and in that process have failed to see the BIG PICTURE (when you are hacking trees how can you be expected to know the forest?).

Asking a Question is different than Questioning. How many participants in this forum can be Candid and Ask themselves "How much of Paramacharya's life they know about", "How much of Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi's life they know about", "How much of present Acharyas' lives they know about", How Much of Brahmin Dictates they practice in their daily life....

The truth is they know little, yet they pose questions in such Internet Forums and Stir up Controversies - all under the misguided pretense that they are in search of truth.

I believe that a whole world of good could come out of this forum, if the seekers of such truth kept their questions/responses to understanding Brahminism, Our Ancestors, What they stood for, What they have asked us to do, etc (Sri R.Venkataraman sets a fine example here of lucidly explaining to Illiterates like me several tenets in Brahminism - MahaVishnu's grace to him).

Sd. Simpleton.

 

[hariharan1972]

A doubt

I am just not in a position to do so logically, excepy my total faith in the Seer tells me that He must have had the proper logic to address this particular issue.

KRS,

I have a doubt. It is a doubt & definitely not a "comment" about the Senior Pontiff.

My knowledge about Shankaracharya's is limited. With that handicap, my question is this :

I have heard my father say that Sri Adi Shankaracharya before leaving for his heavenly abode, visited his ailing mother & performed her last rites as a dutiful son. Am i right in presuming that his mother was a widow at that point in time ?

Now if Adi Shankara could face his widowed mother is there a reason why the Pontiffs of the madams that Sri Shankara established would think & act differently ?

Let me again reiterate that my intention is not to question or comment about Maha Periyavar but only trying to get my doubt clarified.......

If i have exceeded my brief, i seek your forgiveness.

 

[kashyap]

hari has raised a very good point.

 

[silverfox]

Simpleton - a proper name?

At the outset, my profound apologies to anyone if I had stepped out of line. As I have always said, I have profound respect and pranams for Mahaperiyaval. However, I believe if my posting sounded 'arrogant', it may be that I am not as gifted as Born_again_Aiyar_maami in lucid writing and expressing one's thoughts.
What I wanted to convey was that even though he was a great man, he still was a human mortal; he had to die like everybody else. In my poor choice of words, I was trying to say that I shouldn't be worshipping human beings but GOD.

So.... Mr/Ms Simpleton, your posting sounded exactly like the Islamic Taliban or the fundamental Christians. Just because you worship Kanchi Periyaval and think he was God, we all have to fall in line with you! Just like Islam or Christianity, we cannot question anything and accept everything blindly!
You called me 'Arai Vekkadu'; thank you! Yes, I am an ignorant and ordinary human being. Nevertheless, even with my small brain, I know what is right and what is wrong; I know when an injustice is done to our own Brahmin women - making a young woman widow shave her head so that Kanchi Periyaval would see them or else banish them from the society.

Mr/Ms Simpleton: Let me ask you a question: Why and how did Kanchi Periyaval agree to not only see Mrs. Indira Gandhi but also had a long chat with her and blessed her? Thanks to my friends who wrote in to tell me to ask this question.
Sri KRS, thank you for your supporting posting. You are a great human being.
I want to end this by stating that story about poet Nakkeerar. To quote him saying this to Lord Shiva: "Kannai thiranthalum kuttram kuttrame".

I will not get involved in any further debate. Debate is good only when BOTH sides have an open mind to discuss issues.

p.s. I do consider the Great Rishi Ramana Maharishi a true avatar of one of Lord's angels!! He was a great soul and I only wish I had the good fortune of having a darshan of such a saint while he was alive.

It is greatly disappointing to see your reply, silverfox.
Paramacharya was 'Nadamadum Deivam' and continues to Light up the life of millions like me. Refer to Sri.Venkataraman's response in one of his earlier discussion columns about 'Deiva Athmas'. I guess that may not mean much to you since it looks like Arrogance appears to have Clouded Your Judgement - for you to say to 'that you bow to no humans'....

It surely is a sad moment when "Arai Vekkadu's" masquerade as Knowledge/Societal exponents!

So long... Someday, people like you may wake up (maybe not).....

Sorry that I chose to join a group of "Arivilis".... Bye.....

 

[NARAS]

sirs - the maha periyavaa, is considered not just an ordinary saint, but a god himself by not only saivaites, but even many vaishnavites including myself.

once the maha periyavaa was in a ritual. at that time his mother was seriously ill. a telegram came to the camp from the mother's place to the periyavaa. but he signalled his followers not to open the telegram. it was only after completing the entire ritual, he permitted opening of the telegram. because, he did not want the concentration of those who were performing the rituals to be disturbed, as he was sure, the contents of the telegram was about his mothers health. he was such a great saint, who practised what he preached and viceversa. he cannot be accused of double standards or hypocrisy. he did not ask his followers or devotees to ostracize widows.
he neither propagated not pressurised people to discriminate against any widow. he followed a habit of not seeing widows, which is his personal right.

in brahminism 'sumangalis' i.e. married women are considered as descendants of Goddess Mahalakshmi. traditionally, sumangalis alone have the right to perform certain orthodox rituals. remember even a male widower cannot take part in performing the marriage of his offspring. so there are restrictions on everybody, there is no discrimination here, though widows are restricted more than others.

 

[NARAS]

SIRS-orthodox saints do not even keep touch with their own family. they should not have any attachment even towards their parents. does not mean saints are disrespectful or arrogant. just because orthodoxy shuns widows, it should not be construed as disrespect to womanhood.

 

[KRS]

KRS,

I have a doubt. It is a doubt & definitely not a "comment" about the Senior Pontiff.

My knowledge about Shankaracharya's is limited. With that handicap, my question is this :

I have heard my father say that Sri Adi Shankaracharya before leaving for his heavenly abode, visited his ailing mother & performed her last rites as a dutiful son. Am i right in presuming that his mother was a widow at that point in time ?

Now if Adi Shankara could face his widowed mother is there a reason why the Pontiffs of the madams that Sri Shankara established would think & act differently ?

Let me again reiterate that my intention is not to question or comment about Maha Periyavar but only trying to get my doubt clarified.......

If i have exceeded my brief, i seek your forgiveness.

Dear Sri Hari,

You raise a very important question and unfortunately I do not know the answer. These practices are covered in our Shastras, and I do not know which of the Shastras are held up as 'authentic'. Since ALL subsequent works to Vedas and Upanishads must conform to the Truth contained in those, I do not know how the social customs that were practiced, such as about the widows or the treatment of 'Chandalas' came in to effect and what theistic foundation they have.

This is why I am asking the more learned amongst us to throw light on this subject.

By the way, there is another story about Adi Shankaracharya, that is instructive. When he came across a Chandala, he tried to move away from. But the Chandala who was really Lord Shiva, talked to him and showed him who he really was. In my opinion, this little story questions the then prevailing orthodoxy. Those with a contrary understanding may present their opinions on this.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Explanation

Dear Sri Simpleton Ji,

If I have in anyway hurt your sentiments, I apologize. My comments (by the way, I also said that my comments may not apply to yourself), were mainly to show how some ardent devotees can not even hear a honest question (I think most of us here in the Forum are not out to get anybody) without shouting and drowning it out. By this process one loses the opportunity to clarify an issure logically, so that true simpletons like myself can understand an issue logically. I sincerely thought that your comments about Sri Silverfox Ji and Srimathi Baam Ji, bordered on implying that their questions and explanations were somehow sacriligious.

Even our Sapta Rishis were not without human frailties, as depicted in the myriad of stories. So, while we form our faith, we all need to understand why and how certain customs came in to being. I firmly believe that our religion is different from others, because it can logically explain all aspects of it, starting from worshipping the five elements. We may not all agree with all the reasons and some of us may even believe that some of the reasons are anachronistic. But all the same the reasons are there.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[born_again_aiyer_maami]

KRS-ji,
The version I have heard is a follows: Sankaracharya came upon a Chandala (Lord Shiva) and four dogs (the Vedas) near a water-well. When Sankaracharya asked the Chandala to move, the Chandala apparently queried whether he should remove his 'self' or his 'Self' - whereupon Adi Sankaracharya recognized his error, the true nature of the 'Chandala' and the 'four dogs'.
I think the story intends to teach us 'humanity' - i.e. to treat all people with kindness. (I was alluding to 'unkindness' - when I wrote 'what goes around, comes around, eventually!')
Subtext: perhaps the story also teaches us that even our greatest teacher was prone to error ('yaanaikkum adi sarukkum!').
Sub-sub-text: and if even the holiest, of the holies was capable of error - then this parable points to the difficulty of attaining true humility and relinquishing the 'ego'/'self'.

By the way, there is another story about Adi Shankaracharya, that is instructive. When he came across a Chandala, he tried to move away from. But the Chandala who was really Lord Shiva, talked to him and showed him who he really was. In my opinion, this little story questions the then prevailing orthodoxy. Those with a contrary understanding may present their opinions on this.

Pranams,
KRS