Widows and Hindu/ Brahmin tradition

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri sapr333 Ji,

My response below is in 'blue'. Lots of your words are valid, but let me explain my respose so that you understand where I am coming from.

Shri.KRS, You were not harsh on me... Not at all ... Yes,indeed you were harsh towards a person, but not towards the point.
No, sir. I specifically cited your words. I have nothing against you personally - in fact, I admire your input in to this Forum generally. But my words followed the second such instance on your part - you posted the same sentiment before and I have also at that time had the same response, but with less emphasis..

In my post #8, all I'm explaining was the notion of 'Theology',and how it could be useful to get rid of few evils of the society(any society), and I have cited Galielo eg. May be, you may not have liked it,cos I fixed the thelogical central authority to, Shri.Acharyal (or) may be because I refered an eg of Pope-Galielo, in line with Arun's stand on 'widow status'.
No sir, no such feeling was evoked on my part. My only point was this: Please do not try to 'straighten out' a religion if you are not part of it. Religion is spiritual and emotional to it's adherents because it is also cultural. Your suggestions about a very important subject as theology come from a place where you yourself admit to not having deep knowledge. That was my point.


Anyways,knowing it as a sensitive issue,which I had voluntarily said earlier in one of my post, I intentionally stayed away and I silenced myself.., but when H.H sought my response on 'Incest, I thought, it was a good opportunity to explain the forum(esp you), what 'THEOLOGY' is all about (not what bible is all about).Btw,I persume, your subsequent advice to HH is, not to dig muck in another religious scriptures,cos every religion has some...But my stand out there was, every scriptures when looked with the 'literal' eyes, will have such mucks, but we need a theological approach,to correct/explain it.And I have even cited the Taliban-72 houries,where a good theology could have helped them to correct it.
Sir you have a valid point. I appreciate your subsequent postings. Yes, my advice to Srimathi HH Ji came out of my conviction that unless another religion's philosophy affects my own, I have no interest in it, except for intellectual curiosity. Again, please understand that as an 'outsider' one can not reform any system. It has to come from within.

Instead of appreciating that approach, you were quick enough to paint an imaginary enemy out of me,but not on my posts.. Wonder why you took back all our past history, when we were just talking on a simple subject of 'Theology-Widow status"!!!.
Sorry, if I made you feel this way. I do not look at you as an 'enemy'. But please understand that this Forum is home to a community where ulta orthodoxy to ultra liberalism is represented. I just wanted to make sure that you do not offend some of our members' sensibilities. Please understand, as a professed non Hindu, your statements are always viewed with certain amount of skepticism. This was my motive to warn you ahead of time not to transgress certain lines.

I would have appreciated,if you had intellectually responded back that'Hindu tradition has no role of theology, and its only a western concept'. I would have bought that meaningful point,and remained silent.. Yes,Islam too rejects theological approach..Instead,you said,Hinduism's theology is much closer to the nature of things hence supremely logical than any of the so called Abrahamic religions".And if so, you never responded theologicall to any of Arun's questions on sorakkai/widow topic....I would call it as ignorance (Sir,pls dont it as personal)
I do not think that Hinduism lacks any 'theology'. In fact we have scores of different sambradhayams to prove it. Sir, please go back and read my responses about widows/soraikkai. By the way, again, your cocept of 'theology' seems to follow the dictum of Christianity.

By the way, I thought that Islam has a very well developed theological approach. It is just that the theological interpretations are done by local Imams as opposed to Central Autorities in Christianity.


And once again you quickly went to paint me an abrahmic in public,which is not a warranted one here.. I could be a Moslem yesterday, a hindu today, and abrahamic tomorow, and in that sense, does your response holds universally right,for all time-lines.. And again, you went on to say, that Im surviving because of 'You felt I was no-harm', again,makes me wonder what that harm is all about in a place of debate..It only infers me that you are not open to critics (from common public),inspite of knowing that the world/human race/Religions has developed only because of the acceptance of good critics.In this context,Im sure Im not a 'Frog in the well" as you projected me here.Having said that, all my posts were civil in nature I guess and never were offensive to the mission/Goal/Guidelines of this forum.
Sir, I'll be the first one to say that you are one of the most civilized posters in this Forum.

But, please understand the objective of this Forum. It is to promote the welfare of the TB community. And as you know, based on that objective, I have edited out certain postings that showed hate about other religions as well as trying to promote a fundamentalist view.

My tag on you is just that you follow 'monotheism' of Abrahamic kind, mainly based on your postings about morality etc. If you are not, my sincere apologies.

But again, because you are not a TB, unfortunately, your statements are looked at very closely by the readers. On top of it, you have also said that you are not a Hindu. So, again unfortunately, let me repeat the same advice I gave to a different poster. Please weigh how your statement would be taken by a TB. Intellectual arguments without proper identification and love towards a group by an 'outsider' will never be accepted as constructive criticism. I don't know what else I can say to be so blunt.


Lastly your reference of ' Diana Eck " book... definitely will buy it soon.. However, going through the few book reviews, once again, it exposes your lack of Knowledge about 'Theology'..That book is all about spritual journey in understanding various religions.. Yes, at some point it talks about theology, it says "Every individual hindu is a theologian'.Yes,thats why we get contradicting opinions(in this very forum) on Widow status/Sorakkai threads.A good collective central theological approach would have sorted this confusions,wich again prove my earlier view right.
Sir, please read the book first. It will answer your mis conceptions about lack of Hindu 'theology'. I have read it twice. As I have read, 'why I am not a Hindu' and crtiqued it, please read this book and critique it. Then we will have a common ground and terminology to discuss.
. and hence I suggested this responsiblity to Shri.Kachi Periyaval, which made you emotionally furious it seems, just because it came from a person like me who shares opposite view..
Sir, by this time you should have learnt that I do not make 'emotional' responses. Please cite any such occasion where I have made any 'emotional' reponse without logic.

Im sure, had Arun said that, you wouldnt have got this much furious, cos you said, Im a guest here at your mercy!! Once agin,I request you to investigate the message in the posts, not the personality!!
Sir, again I go back to the objectives of this Forum. Unless you admit being a TB or at least a Hindu without prejudice against Brahmins, how can you belittle my remark? Did I utter untruth? Message is always given out by a messenger with associated prejudices and motives and so havs to be analyzed in that context.


PS: Moderator Shri.KRS, you may delete this post, if you feel, its not fit for records. Apologize, if my tone of writing was too much personal.
Sir, please understand, my motive was not to offend you - because you do bring in a fresh perspective to this Forum that we all enjoy and appreciate. I am not your enemy - but rather a friend. If I am the former, I would not be taking time to post this. You are welcome here, but please understand that based on our objectives and guidelines, we have certain limitations as to what we can post. What all I am requesting is for you to understand the sensitivities of all the members of our community and act accordingly. Sorry if I hurt you, but I did not know how else to be clear on a subject, the second time around.

Regards,
KRS

 

[arunshanker]

Sappr said
"I am sure, had Arun said that, you wouldn't have got this much furious, cos you said, I am a guest here at your mercy!! Once again,I request you to investigate the depth message in the posts, not the personality!!"

I pained to hear that
in fact
I am a TB and also a very vociferous critic of the the TB ways, guess you all would have got it now by my posts
in fact if I had posted my views without having concern for the ppl in this forum
I would have been banned by Mr KRS
this I say because my profession demands Hypothesis driven mechanistic approach to answer a question and rejection of the hypothesis in the event of not satisfying certain conditions
Guess this approach is not correct in theology, and religion

 

[KRS]

Dear sri arunshanker Ji,

No worries. This Forum does not ban anyonr for their thoughts and opinions unless they are uncivilized or do cause injury to our community.

I was trained in Physics and so I very well understand the mind set of a scientist. But at the same time I also understand the mind set of a conservative religious person.

The aim of this Forum is to accommodate both views while at the same time finding a common ground to promote our community's interest.

Your views are welcome. Sri sapr333's views are welcome. But as I have pointed out, this Forum is not for 'outsiders' from other religions to take free shots at us and use the civility of this Forum for that purpose.

Regards,
KRS

Sappr said
"I am sure, had Arun said that, you wouldn't have got this much furious, cos you said, I am a guest here at your mercy!! Once again,I request you to investigate the depth message in the posts, not the personality!!"

I pained to hear that
in fact
I am a TM and also a very vociferous critic of the the TM ways, guess you all would have got it now by my posts
in fact if I had posted my views without having concern for the ppl in this forum
I would have been banned by Mr KRS
this I say because my profession demands Hypothesis driven mechanistic approach to answer a question and rejection of the hypothesis in the event of not satisfying certain conditions
Guess this approach is not correct in theology, and religion

 

[sapr333]

Shri.KRS, thanks for the meticulous response. A gentle reminder, once again, I request you to skip the salutation Shri/Sir..


>> I have nothing against you personally>>

Sorry, I should have spelt it as 'Personality Trait/Identity'. After all how come 2 humans can have enmity in a virtual internet forum..Anyways,I've never (or) not going to share open any of my religious/cultural identity here, cos,in another way,it also helps not fall in to any 'emotional traps/prejudice/mind sets',while debating in a forum. Members can run their wild imaginations on this..


>>do not try to 'straighten out' a religion if you are not part of it.>>>theology, yourself admit to not having deep knowledge.>>>

I think, aetheists, played a major role in correcting the evils of religions, by sitting outside the boundary. The Press (even Indian press) and the columnists do daily points out the wrong talibanic ideology of 72Houris.Even Buddha/Luther inspite of exiting their old religions, still pin pointed and worked to correct their earlier religions. I think I'm right in my point, though many may not be open to accept it.

Regarding theology, I only stressed the importance of 'Theological Approach'.. Having profound theological knowledge is not the issue here,cos it applies to a particular tradition,which one follows, and that knowledge cannot be used for other traditions.


>> your statements are always viewed with certain amount of skepticism. This was my motive to warn you ahead of time not to transgress certain lines.>>

Thank you.. I do appreciate that, in you.

Having said that, wonder why you went on appealing to the entire forum,as if you've been harsh to me (which you are not).. You could have addressed me straight,right!! As a moderator, you could have even taken your stick and given "Pedagogy' style monish.I would have really appreciated that.


Anyways, lets 'bury the hatchet' and move on to the important discussions..


PS:Once again,Shri.KRS, thanks for the meticulous (Marked by precise accordance with details) response..

 

[KRS]

Dear sapr333,

My response in 'blue'. But please understand - salutations keep us civil. Please grant me the freedom to atleast address you with the prefix 'Sri'. Even though we are not known to each other, this lets me know that there is real human being on the other side.

Shri.KRS, thanks for the meticulous response. A gentle reminder, once again, I request you to skip the salutation Shri/Sir..


>> I have nothing against you personally>>

Sorry, I should have spelt it as 'Personality Trait/Identity'. After all how come 2 humans can have enmity in a virtual internet forum..Anyways,I've never (or) not going to share open any of my religious/cultural identity here, cos,in another way,it also helps not fall in to any 'emotional traps/prejudice/mind sets',while debating in a forum. Members can run their wild imaginations on this..
Okay. But please understand that in the absence of your particular identity, you will be viewed as a non Hindu TB.

>>do not try to 'straighten out' a religion if you are not part of it.>>>theology, yourself admit to not having deep knowledge.>>>

I think, aetheists, played a major role in correcting the evils of religions, by sitting outside the boundary. The Press (even Indian press) and the columnists do daily points out the wrong talibanic ideology of 72Houris.Even Buddha/Luther inspite of exiting their old religions, still pin pointed and worked to correct their earlier religions. I think I'm right in my point, though many may not be open to accept it.
But sir, atheism was a part of Hinduism. Buddha and Luther created their own seperate religion/sub religion, and the original ones still are in existence. In other words, even their enlightements did not impact their original religious principles. They had to start their own brands of different religions. Am I not correct in this?

Regarding theology, I only stressed the importance of 'Theological Approach'.. Having profound theological knowledge is not the issue here,cos it applies to a particular tradition,which one follows, and that knowledge cannot be used for other traditions.
True. And the key here is that the one making such claims understands all diffrent theologies in depth. One can not make comments about other religions' theologies if one is not knowledgeable about them - taken from your own words above.

>> your statements are always viewed with certain amount of skepticism. This was my motive to warn you ahead of time not to transgress certain lines.>>

Thank you.. I do appreciate that, in you.

Having said that, wonder why you went on appealing to the entire forum,as if you've been harsh to me (which you are not).. You could have addressed me straight,right!! As a moderator, you could have even taken your stick and given "Pedagogy' style monish.I would have really appreciated that.
Because, Sir, I did warn you once before. I do not think people are viewing you as 'untouchable', because of my moderation. My response came out the way it did, because you did not adhere to my caution to you earlier.

Anyways, lets 'bury the hatchet' and move on to the important discussions..
No hatchet need to be buried. I understand your motives and you are still our friend. But, please have some sensitivity towards our most orthodox members.


PS:Once again,Shri.KRS, thanks for the meticulous (Marked by precise accordance with details) response..

No problems dear sapr333. I sincerely hope you grasped the gist of what I am talking about.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sapr333]

dear sapr333. I sincerely hope you grasped the gist of what I am talking about.

Shri.KRS, thanks, I understood the gist.. Lets move on to the discussions..

 

[arunshanker]

Sappr said "Members can run their wild imaginations on this.."
I say - Do I care?
the ideas and thoughts of the members are more useful to me than their adherence

 

[anandb]

Dear Arunshanker

I am new here again
and find that everyone are addressed with a Ji or a sri
I take the liberty to address
kunjuppu as just kunjuppu and expect everybody to the same with me
dear kunjuppu
that was a great reply
but you and HH have to comment on the Kanchi matt and widow thing
I remember that Paramacharya was ready to see Mrs Gandhi ??? (Am I correct?)
How can I possibly accept a person who considers it as a sin to even set his eyes on a window as a Guru
That is the conflict!!!!

As far as I know the Paramacharya never refused to see widows. Those widows who had not shaved their heads and wearing the appropriate colored sari were those who did not come in front of him. A saint like him would definitely have a very good reason for this. There is no sanction in our scriptures as to ill treatment of widows. I am no expert but in my opinion a widow’s attire was like the attire of other groups of people who could be identified by what they wear just like a Brahmin or a Vaishya or a Sanyasi. Again in ancient times, widows willingly accepted their positions. There was no force or ill treatment involved. In fact after reading the Acharya’s speeches, I came to know that a person who had lost his wife loses all rights to perform austerities or sacrifices. There should have been identification for the widower as well but I think as the society became a male chauvinist one, the women were at the receiving end. As you said a very pertinent question arises as to why the Acharya refused to see the widow if not wearing the appropriate attire when he received a Brahmin in his kachai and mel thundu but without a kudumi or a widower in a inappropriate attire (if at all there was one for the widower)? I am sure there is a valid reason either in his speeches (I am trying to find out) or someone close to him can explain. But I wouldn’t go to the extent of not accepting him because if you read about him (Deivathin Kural, www.kamakoti.org, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaZiCdRKxjw), I can understand that he is a great Guru.

He does hold some conventional views which seem to go against modern thought but goes to great length in explaining the logic behind his views. I remember reading his views on what we call child marriage where his reasoning and insights really set me thinking.

Actually the story I heard on Mrs. Gandhi was she was made to wait for hours to get his darshan (this was after the emergency) and finally when she was blessed by him she decided to change the party symbol to “hand” from the “cow and calf”. The Acharya was a very flexible person. You can see in the website an incident that once Rajaji accompanied another dignitary to meet the Acharya. While the dignitary came in to meet the Acharya, Rajaji stayed outside. The Acharya came called him in and asked why he did not come to meet him and Rajaji replied that he had still not had his bath. The Acharya replied that people in public domain may not get the time to perform certain things but does not mean he will not meet them. The same reasoning could probably be applied in him meeting Mrs. Gandhi, a widow.

Thanks

 

[arunshanker]

Anand said
widows willingly accepted their positions.
I don't think so
by saying that we just shirk away from the injustice that was done to the windows
you say
"I am sure there is a valid reason either in his speeches"
In fact that is what everybody is searching for so that the speeches of Acharyas in general are beyond question
We find valid reasons so that we free ourselves from the difficult task of questioning!
in this context I request you to have a look at my post # 75 at this URL http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=1977&page=8

you also say "Those widows who had not shaved their heads and wearing the appropriate colored sari were those who did not come in front of him."
Does that mean that they voluntarily never came in front of him or it was not allowed to come in front of him
if either then what should one infer from Mrs Gandhi coming in front of him?
The Public domain concession is something I find not acceptable
As a free thinker I first and foremost feel that every human being is the same spiritually at least what ever be the domain
In fact Leave alone the Achraya, What do you think God would have done if He were confronted with ppl from different domains?
Please do understand I may sound harsh to the orthodox but I am taking the liberty here because the section description says
"If you absolutely believe that our current ways are supreme and that traditions should not be questioned in any way this is NOT the thread for you"

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri arunshanker Ji,

I have been living in USA for the past forty years. During this time, I did not have any particular connection with the Kanchu Muth (for that matter any Shankara Muth), even though Both Kanchi and Sringeri Seers visited my home when I was young.

I did not, like you appreciate the stand of the Sri Matham with respect to certain issues. (I still do not in some ways). But then one fine morning I read that they dragged away the pontiff and locked Him up. Something in me told me that that was not right. I got involved and as a result came in to contact with a few remarkable devotees who also felt the same.

During this time I came to know a born muslim who is a professor of philosophy in Paris - who by chance was adopted as a sishya by Maha Periaval. I spent considerable time with him in Paris - even I visited him two months ago- and every time I meet, he shares with me some unique story about Maha Periaval, which touches upon His humanity.

I have come to a conclusion that this Maha Periaval was not an ordinary human being.

Let me give you an example: He gave an edict that families who demand and get Varadhakshinai should not use His name in the marriage invitations (people would put 'Under the auspices and grace of Maha Periaval). But folks still brazenly went against this edict and would still use His name, even though they violated His wishes (I know my uncle did so). A person from the press once asked Him about this, and He said ' yes, I know they are doing so. May be it is because I have not done enough Tapas'.

Please think about this statement. He always said that it was not His place to reform the society. As a Head of a Math with tradition, He did not see that it was His role to reform.

But privately He always granted exceptions based on humanism. I know this, because my mother, who was a widow when He visited us in our uncle's home was allowed to have dharshan. And He blessed her.

Anyways, I thought you should know.

Regards,
KRS

 

[tbs]

Anand said
widows willingly accepted their positions.
I don't think so
by saying that we just shirk away from the injustice that was done to the windows
you say
"I am sure there is a valid reason either in his speeches"
In fact that is what everybody is searching for so that the speeches of Acharyas in general are beyond question
We find valid reasons so that we free ourselves from the difficult task of questioning!
in this context I request you to have a look at my post # 75 at this URL http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=1977&page=8

you also say "Those widows who had not shaved their heads and wearing the appropriate colored sari were those who did not come in front of him."
Does that mean that they voluntarily never came in front of him or it was not allowed to come in front of him
if either then what should one infer from Mrs Gandhi coming in front of him?
The Public domain concession is something I find not acceptable
As a free thinker I first and foremost feel that every human being is the same spiritually at least what ever be the domain
In fact Leave alone the Achraya, What do you think God would have done if He were confronted with ppl from different domains?
Please do understand I may sound harsh to the orthodox but I am taking the liberty here because the section description says
"If you absolutely believe that our current ways are supreme and that traditions should not be questioned in any way this is NOT the thread for you"

hi arun
i like to share my experiences with u...my mother is widow...
my younger brother was a student of Maha periyaval...but she
was not allowed in Sri Matham ...even now my mother
visited Kanchipuram..i heard that she got darshan of
periya periyaval/pudu periyaval....the reason for Maha
periyal was..she was not done mundan or wearing
widow dress...i dunno the reasom.. becoz i was very
young boy at that time... i heard that now a days
a lot of changes are happening...

regards

 

[arunshanker]

Thanks to KRS and tbs
tbs says
i heard that now a days
a lot of changes are happening...
that is most welcome
That is what we TBs should be happy about
so that we can be proud
Change for good and lift us up from the critical eyes of the world

 

[anandb]

Dear Arunshanker

I don't think so
by saying that we just shirk away from the injustice that was done to the windows

I think you misunderstood what I said or probably I did not make myself clear. When I said “widows willingly accepted their positions” I was referring to a different time period altogether. I am in no way justifying treating widows in the same fashion now.

you say
"I am sure there is a valid reason either in his speeches"
In fact that is what everybody is searching for so that the speeches of Acharyas in general are beyond question
We find valid reasons so that we free ourselves from the difficult task of questioning!
in this context I request you to have a look at my post # 75 at this URL http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=1977&page=8

I think the quest for answers never end. The dilemma one faces is either you take a stand now and keep searching for answers or don’t take a stand till an answer is found. My problem with the latter is when an answer is found for a question another question may arise. I am a great fan of Paramacharya but am willing to adopt a neutral position on this till I get an answer either from what he had said or from someone who can throw light on this. But no way will this one thing stop me from considering him as a guru because his stand on this is just a drop in the ocean of what he has said over 80 years. It does not mean I am trivializing this issue. As Shri KRS had said he is no ordinary person. There could be issues on which I may not agree with his stand but still for me he is a guru because he has been a leading light for me on so many other issues. You may call this as blind adulation but it is not because adulation is reserved for celebrities, sportspeople or politicians who entertain. A Guru is quite different from all these people.

you also say "Those widows who had not shaved their heads and wearing the appropriate colored sari were those who did not come in front of him."
Does that mean that they voluntarily never came in front of him or it was not allowed to come in front of him
if either then what should one infer from Mrs Gandhi coming in front of him?
The Public domain concession is something I find not acceptable
As a free thinker I first and foremost feel that every human being is the same spiritually at least what ever be the domain
In fact Leave alone the Achraya, What do you think God would have done if He were confronted with ppl from different domains?

It is the same as the Acharya did not encourage women to wear silk saris when they came to see him. Almost everyone knew about these rules and voluntarily abstained. My grandma who was a widow never shaved her head or wore the appropriate (?) sari and never saw him after she became a widow though she had the highest respect for him.

Here you are seeing at face value just the act of Mrs. Gandhi (not in a widow dress) given a darshan by the Acharya. Personally I don’t take offence that the Acharya met Mrs. G but probably would not have met my grandma who was not in a widow dress. The fact remains that my grandma is not Mrs. G and Mrs. G is not my grandma. If you look at their respective roles, Mrs. G had a huge role to play in the politics of the country even after losing her husband. Definitely as a political and public figure she would have had to make certain adjustments in appearance and other things if she wanted to rule a country filled with different religions. So if the Acharya met Mrs. G but possibly refused to meet my grandma it takes into account their respective role play on life. If you look at Hindu Dharma the rules apply differently to different people. I am sure even during the Acharya’s times many people would have flouted these rules and to think he wouldn’t have realized is naïve but being the person he was he would have still blessed them.

Please do understand I may sound harsh to the orthodox but I am taking the liberty here because the section description says
"If you absolutely believe that our current ways are supreme and that traditions should not be questioned in any way this is NOT the thread for you"

I think there is a difference between what is said by our scriptures and traditions based on that against traditions which have been adopted by people based on superstitions and heresy. I am against the latter.

 

[arunshanker]

I think you misunderstood what I said or probably I did not make myself clear. When I said “widows willingly accepted their positions” I was referring to a different time period altogether. I am in no way justifying treating widows in the same fashion now.



I think the quest for answers never end. The dilemma one faces is either you take a stand now and keep searching for answers or don’t take a stand till an answer is found. My problem with the latter is when an answer is found for a question another question may arise. I am a great fan of Paramacharya but am willing to adopt a neutral position on this till I get an answer either from what he had said or from someone who can throw light on this. But no way will this one thing stop me from considering him as a guru because his stand on this is just a drop in the ocean of what he has said over 80 years. It does not mean I am trivializing this issue. As Shri KRS had said he is no ordinary person. There could be issues on which I may not agree with his stand but still for me he is a guru because he has been a leading light for me on so many other issues. You may call this as blind adulation but it is not because adulation is reserved for celebrities, sportspeople or politicians who entertain. A Guru is quite different from all these people.



It is the same as the Acharya did not encourage women to wear silk saris when they came to see him. Almost everyone knew about these rules and voluntarily abstained. My grandma who was a widow never shaved her head or wore the appropriate (?) sari and never saw him after she became a widow though she had the highest respect for him.

Here you are seeing at face value just the act of Mrs. Gandhi (not in a widow dress) given a darshan by the Acharya. Personally I don’t take offence that the Acharya met Mrs. G but probably would not have met my grandma who was not in a widow dress. The fact remains that my grandma is not Mrs. G and Mrs. G is not my grandma. If you look at their respective roles, Mrs. G had a huge role to play in the politics of the country even after losing her husband. Definitely as a political and public figure she would have had to make certain adjustments in appearance and other things if she wanted to rule a country filled with different religions. So if the Acharya met Mrs. G but possibly refused to meet my grandma it takes into account their respective role play on life. If you look at Hindu Dharma the rules apply differently to different people. I am sure even during the Acharya’s times many people would have flouted these rules and to think he wouldn’t have realized is naïve but being the person he was he would have still blessed them.



I think there is a difference between what is said by our scriptures and traditions based on that against traditions which have been adopted by people based on superstitions and heresy. I am against the latter.

Thanks Anand I accept your reply in the right spirit
Please do forgive me If I have caused pain to you or anyone else in this forum

But I am again tempted to say this
you said "The fact remains that my grandma is not Mrs. G and Mrs. G is not my grandma. If you look at their respective roles, Mrs. G had a huge role to play in the politics of the country even after losing her husband. Definitely as a political and public figure she would have had to make certain adjustments in appearance and other things if she wanted to rule a country filled with different religions.
But is it not true that all humans and for that matter life is the same in Gods Eye (so should be in a Gurus eye)
and should it not be correct that a revered religious Guru places everyone in the same footing
wont that give more credibility to him especially from the critics
IN fact this where the DKs an DMKs are attacking us and we possibility cant give a good answer

 

[anandb]

Dear Arunshanker

But I am again tempted to say this
you said "The fact remains that my grandma is not Mrs. G and Mrs. G is not my grandma. If you look at their respective roles, Mrs. G had a huge role to play in the politics of the country even after losing her husband. Definitely as a political and public figure she would have had to make certain adjustments in appearance and other things if she wanted to rule a country filled with different religions.
But is it not true that all humans and for that matter life is the same in Gods Eye (so should be in a Gurus eye)
and should it not be correct that a revered religious Guru places everyone in the same footing
wont that give more credibility to him especially from the critics
IN fact this where the DKs an DMKs are attacking us and we possibility cant give a good answer

There is absolutely no pain or whatever. I appreciate your line of questioning. In my opinion, equality of all life forms before God opposes the law of karma. If everyone were equal, you will not find so much inequality in almost everything in the world. Of course we can say that man has created much of these but I would say a lot of creation starts unequally as per Karma and then man perpetuates these differences instead of abolishing them.

I will cite an example again from Paramacharya. A Western woman approached him and asked him to explain the law of karma. He sent her to a nearby hospital to observe the maternity ward and then come back. She saw, came back and asked what she saw she said she saw a variety of babies, some normal, some handicapped, some black, some poor, some born to rich parents and some born to poor. She was then asked if she believed if god was loving, kind and benevolent to all living beings and she answered yes. If she believed that god was fair and equitable to all, she answered yes. Then the Acharya asked her to explain the reason for the differences among the babies.

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Mahaperiava didn't saw a widow, he saw the leader of HIS beloved country, who incidentally had an adjective as widow.

 

[sapr333]

A Western woman approached him and asked him to explain the law of karma. He sent her to a nearby hospital to observe the maternity ward and then come back. She saw, came back and asked what she saw she said she saw a variety of babies, some normal, some handicapped, some black, some poor, some born to rich parents and some born to poor. She was then asked if she believed if god was loving, kind and benevolent to all living beings and she answered yes. If she believed that god was fair and equitable to all, she answered yes. Then the Acharya asked her to explain the reason for the differences among the babies.

Dear Anand,

Here you need to understand the context of the term 'Equality''... No two ideal 1Kg weighing-stones can be ideally equal, if you look in with a microscopic view.. Same humans with Black&white skins cannot be equal in terms of colour.. A handicapped is not the same with a normal one. Yes, there is a physical inequality, and its an accepted norm..Or else, the whole world would have been so symmetrical , and the countries borders would have been straight like our school days 'Graph Chart'..

The point of equality,what the world is talking about is, on humanitarian sense, giving the highest dignity to a human. The equality the whole world is talking about is, in terms of 'Human Dignity'..Its a social issue, not a physical issue..You believe, God is within you (himself) and every human is a reflection of god.. right!!

 

[happyhindu]

The point of equality,what the world is talking about is, on humanitarian sense, giving the highest dignity to a human. The equality the whole world is talking about is, in terms of 'Human Dignity'..Its a social issue, not a physical issue..You believe, God is within you (himself) and every human is a reflection of god.. right!!

hmmm... not based on anand's comments but just a standalone doubt:

is it possible some do not really believe in 'god', and beleive the world to be unequal as is seen, felt, expereinced, since they understand that which is 'beyond the seen" in a particular way, or they do not seek that which is beyond the seen ?? or what could be the reason ?? have been asking a guru about these things, to understand the basis on which dharma rules are based...wud appreciate if anyone cud throw light on the basis on which the dharmashastras are based..

regards.

 

[arunshanker]

I will cite an example again from Paramacharya. A Western woman approached him and asked him to explain the law of karma. He sent her to a nearby hospital to observe the maternity ward and then come back. She saw, came back and asked what she saw she said she saw a variety of babies, some normal, some handicapped, some black, some poor, some born to rich parents and some born to poor. She was then asked if she believed if god was loving, kind and benevolent to all living beings and she answered yes. If she believed that god was fair and equitable to all, she answered yes. Then the Acharya asked her to explain the reason for the differences among the babies.

Actually my response to this is
if the western women had some good knowledge of human genetics
she could have indeed explained to the Paramacharya the reasons for the differences observed in the children (some normal, some handicapped, some black) and if she had some knowledge of rural and urban sociology she could have told Paramacharya for the differneces some born to rich parents and some born to poor
Where does Karma come here?
A black child is black because it has inherited the genes for increased melanin production
it is as simple as that
why should we look for unexplainable reasons when a scientifically proved fact is before our eyes

Sappr says "The point of equality,what the world is talking about is, on humanitarian sense, giving the highest dignity to a human. The equality the whole world is talking about is, in terms of 'Human Dignity'..Its a social issue, not a physical issue..You believe, God is within you (himself) and every human is a reflection of god.. right!!
He is speaking my mind
Actually the Paramacharya has to ascribe it to something and the something should be unquestionable
and Karma comes in
Now if some ones asks what is Karma
the answer I guess would be deed in previous birth
Now if i ask what is known about the previous birth of these children ... The questioning will go on and on
That how the "freethinker" try's to find answers which is very different from "Guru seekers"

 

[happyhindu]

True Arun, perhaps we shd start a discussion on what is karma to dif hindu schools of thot...there does seem to some diff in how priestly sections and monastic sections explain it, like the purusha suktam is explained differently by them...

i mean i wud really find it funny if someone were to say only-i-am-good because i have inherited sattva gunas by birth and am entitled to do these jobs, but you are tamasic, lazy, so you are entitled to do these jobs. Now a brahmin can be a lazy guy like a shudra, can be an enterprising guy like a vaishya, can be a valourous guy like a kshatriya and can be a religious or spiritual guy like a brahmin....

 

[arunshanker]

brahmin can be a lazy guy like a shudra.

A word of caution
That particular sentence is not very nice
it makes the reader assume that you assume that shudras are lazy

I bet you don't but many wont be as liberal as me
In fact the Shudra does more hard labor than the brahmin
ponder please!

 

[happyhindu]

oops sorry...my apologies. thanks for letting me know arun. sometimes the other side of how things can be understood misses me..

 

[anandb]

Dear Sapr

Dear Anand,

Here you need to understand the context of the term 'Equality''... No two ideal 1Kg weighing-stones can be ideally equal, if you look in with a microscopic view.. Same humans with Black&white skins cannot be equal in terms of colour.. A handicapped is not the same with a normal one. Yes, there is a physical inequality, and its an accepted norm..Or else, the whole world would have been so symmetrical , and the countries borders would have been straight like our school days 'Graph Chart'..

The point of equality,what the world is talking about is, on humanitarian sense, giving the highest dignity to a human. The equality the whole world is talking about is, in terms of 'Human Dignity'..Its a social issue, not a physical issue..You believe, God is within you (himself) and every human is a reflection of god.. right!!

I agree to the fact that equality is more of a social issue these days than earlier. The more equal we try to become eve socially the more unequal we are becoming in terms of the divide between rich and poor, the educated and uneducated and so on. My response was to Arunshanker's question of isn't everyone equal before god. As per Krishna in the Bhagawad Gita, there was no inequality in any form in the Satya Yuga when there was only one varna known as Hamsa. But as the human beings sense of righteousness and morality was decreasing different life forms were created to accommodate the effects of the action of the life forms. The point I am trying to convey is there is inequality in every aspect of life. Does not mean we should be mute spectators to it. We should defenitely address the social inequality at least.

 

[anandb]

Dear Arunshanker

Actually my response to this is
if the western women had some good knowledge of human genetics
she could have indeed explained to the Paramacharya the reasons for the differences observed in the children (some normal, some handicapped, some black) and if she had some knowledge of rural and urban sociology she could have told Paramacharya for the differneces some born to rich parents and some born to poor
Where does Karma come here?
A black child is black because it has inherited the genes for increased melanin production
it is as simple as that
why should we look for unexplainable reasons when a scientifically proved fact is before our eyes

Sappr says "The point of equality,what the world is talking about is, on humanitarian sense, giving the highest dignity to a human. The equality the whole world is talking about is, in terms of 'Human Dignity'..Its a social issue, not a physical issue..You believe, God is within you (himself) and every human is a reflection of god.. right!!
He is speaking my mind
Actually the Paramacharya has to ascribe it to something and the something should be unquestionable
and Karma comes in
Now if some ones asks what is Karma
the answer I guess would be deed in previous birth
Now if i ask what is known about the previous birth of these children ... The questioning will go on and on
That how the "freethinker" try's to find answers which is very different from "Guru seekers"

I deeply appreciate your vigorous reasoning based on science. My line of thought is based on the fact that when a life form is created, it may start from a position of advantage or disadvantage based on various factors like caste, colour, creed, status, physical form etc. There itself the notion of equality is thwarted. To me, if it is true that god loves his creations equally and does not discriminate between them, then there is some other law which gives a position of advantage or disadvantage when the being comes into this world for the first time. I attribute this to karma or as you said past deeds. It does not stop there. As the being evolves and grows, we can see the play of karma. There are so many worthless people apparently having a good time in life while a lot of talented people languish without recognition in spite of hard work. There are people dying in accidents or getting mugged for no fault of theirs, healthy people suddenly succumbing to terminal diseases or a plane carrying passengers’ crashes where only a few people survive. Who makes these choices that a particular life should live and another should die and one can enjoy life while another should suffer. How do I explain this? Newton’s third law is based on karma with the only difference being karma says the reaction could be many times more than the action. Thus a small dharmic or adharmic action could lead to a reaction whose impact could be much more powerful.

I am a bit amused by the implication in your response that Paramacharya could possibly not give a scientific explanation so just to ward of the questioner put it on karma. Definitely you need to know more about him and a place to start is where you click “Devotees experiences” in www.kamakoti.org. This also leads to your distinction between a “guru-seeker” and a “freethinker”. You seem to imply that they are mutually exclusive and I say they are not. A Guru-seeker’s thinking does not stop when he finds a guru. In our system, the guru is a spiritual guide while the disciple is allowed to explore and find the answers for himself. Whether you take the Acharyas or Sai Baba or any other guru, they have disciples from all walks of life. I don’t think these people are any less a free-thinker than a guru-seeker.

When we blame karma or previous deeds, there is an inherent understanding that a good deed or bad deed in a previous birth has possibly caused an impact now. In my opinion it is not a fatalistic view but something which gives extra strength to cope with the condition. Other than a few eccentric people, I don’t think anyone is interested in who he or she was in their previous birth. Rather to concentrate on present deeds and shape your future destiny if one believed karma. I read this beautiful translation from the Upanishads which has got stuck in my mind. I think the message of all these positivity and self-help books is conveyed here.

“You are what your deepest desire is;
As you desire, so is your intention;
As your intention, so is your will;
As is your will, so is your deed;
As is your deed, so is your destiny”

All religious recognize the above but other religions give one life time for a soul who is judged for his actions on the Day of Judgment. The shastras say a soul is given many life times to enjoy or suffer the fruits of its actions. You could say there is no scientific proof for all these but “faith” and “belief” is stronger than science. They will continue to exist and as you can see the onus is on science to prove if they are true or false and not the other way around.

 

[happyhindu]

As per Krishna in the Bhagawad Gita, there was no inequality in any form in the Satya Yuga when there was only one varna known as Hamsa. But as the human beings sense of righteousness and morality was decreasing different life forms were created to accommodate the effects of the action of the life forms. The point I am trying to convey is there is inequality in every aspect of life. Does not mean we should be mute spectators to it. We should defenitely address the social inequality at least.

Please could you elaborate on the sentence in bold. This explanation is based on which slokas of the Gita or from where.

Thanks.