• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Excerpts from Dialogue with the Guru

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL or laugh out loud

what does lol mean?

is it contempt?

is it mocking?

is it saying what the other person saying is nonsense?

if someone 'los's my post, should i feel offended? feel small? feel flattered? feel like a comic? feel like a buffoon? feel like an idiot?

i am very confused. seriously folks, at the numerous varying instances lol is used in this forum.

i looked up in the urban dictionary & this is what i saw:

Depending on the chatter, its definition may vary. The list of its meanings includes, but is not limited to:
1) "I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this conversation."
2) "I'm too lazy to read what you just wrote so I'm typing something useless in hopes that you'll think I'm still paying attention."
3) "Your statement lacks even the vaguest trace of humor but I'll pretend I'm amused."
4) "This is a pointless acronym I'm sticking in my sentence just because it's become so engraved into my mind that when chatting, I MUST use the meaningless sentence-filler 'lol.'"

Urban Dictionary: lol
 
\"God can very well decide the competency of people and allocate karmas to them, according to their competency and earlier punya and refinement.\" post 18. Hello pviyer: How do you expect the non-existent God do all this? It\'s all man-made stories to bully you and other \"innocent or ignorant\" people, imo. By \"earlier punya\", are you referring to the so-called Janma Poorva Karma - a hoax? Cheers.​
If you read the works of saints there is really no need to go into whether earlier punya is previous birth or present birth. Earlier punya is earned punya. This earned punya materializes in making things easier. It does never make reaching god out of reach for anyone. But this is immaterial as God is the dispenser of karma. One\'s duties are indicated through one\'s own birth. Christianity is the best religion for a Christian and Hinduism is the best religion for a Hindu. Approaches are different but God knows what is the capacity one will get in one life. May be christianity, Islam serve some purpose and christians and muslims are required in this world like Hindus. It is sufficient if one is a good person in one\'s own religion. How one\'s actions are judged will be God\'s own decision. No religion is accidentally created and God ensures that there is opportunity for everyone to reach him. This is the message of his holiness.
 
what does lol mean?

is it contempt?

is it mocking?

is it saying what the other person saying is nonsense?

if someone 'los's my post, should i feel offended? feel small? feel flattered? feel like a comic? feel like a buffoon? feel like an idiot?

i am very confused. seriously folks, at the numerous varying instances lol is used in this forum.

i looked up in the urban dictionary & this is what i saw:

Depending on the chatter, its definition may vary. The list of its meanings includes, but is not limited to:
1) "I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this conversation."
2) "I'm too lazy to read what you just wrote so I'm typing something useless in hopes that you'll think I'm still paying attention."
3) "Your statement lacks even the vaguest trace of humor but I'll pretend I'm amused."
4) "This is a pointless acronym I'm sticking in my sentence just because it's become so engraved into my mind that when chatting, I MUST use the meaningless sentence-filler 'lol.'"

Urban Dictionary: lol

Dear K:

I use LOL or Lol or lol often to just say "laugh out loud" after reading this sentence or the para or the post...

Contextually, it could mean "take it easy" "don't get offended" or "don't be too serious"... and the like.

Anyway, I use it to bring some sense of humor also to a very pungent and offensive idea!

I want a sense of humor amidst a serious talk!

Nothing more.

Cheers.

:)
 
namaste everyone.

Sangom said in post #16:
This betrays the mindset of that swamiji who might have been steeped in the superstitious beliefs and conventions of a bygone era.

Our Hindu Dharma does require some sages to teach traditional values according to our scriptures to the same extent that it requires other sages and reformers who speak against certain traditions as not relevant today. There is no mindset involved in the activities of either group, IMO.

Dear Shri Saidevo,

The word 'mindset' means, a habitual or characteristic mental attitude that determines how you will interpret and respond to situations. This is what I intended when I said "the mindset of that swamiji who might have been steeped in the superstitious beliefs and conventions of a bygone era." That is, the Swamiji concerned was so self-indoctrinated by his own knowledge about our scriptures, the various rules prescribed by them and so on, that he could not visualize a world outside/other than the one which occupied his imagination and that was a world which functioned according to the scriptural rules. Otherwise the Swamiji would have been able to understand the position or mental status from which the European was asking questions and would have been able to answer him in a more cogent and non-controversial way.

Let us take the case of practice of abortion that has been opposed by tradition as against the concept of non-violence, but is no longer held relevant today. The reigning Pope himself is totally against this practice in the name of his religion and tradition, though it is widely prevalent today.

Would our reformers here say that this speaks of the mindset of the Pope steeped in superstitious beliefs? It would be frivolous to say so because the Pope represents a religious/spiritual tradition, and he cannot speak against it in his personal capacity.

I will say that the Pope is out of sync with today's world and is either having mindset steeped in superstitious beliefs, or, he is putting on a mask and saying what his religious orthodoxy want him to. Yes, it may be that he cannot speak against that religious orthodoxy. But AFAIK, the Pope can rewrite the rule with the authority vested in him. Why he is not supporting abortion is most probably because Christianity is essentially a proselytizing religion and its prime objective is to increase the number of followers. Allowing large families, by blocking abortion, is a sure way of adding "lambs" to their flock in a non-controversial way. That must be the overarching consideration.

Anyway, I will like to know how the one supreme authority of the Catholics has been compared to one mutt head of one schism of hinduism, i.e., advaita.

Those who accuse our traditional gurus of having a mindset of a bygone era, those who run away with their outbursts just for the sake of venting their ire, and those who support such ourburst, forget that their action in turn speaks of their own mindset, specially when it concerns sages who are revered by Hindus the world over.

A very long-winded innuendo which means nothing ultimately, imo. I have no disrespect for the Swamiji nor do I have any special respect for him. I don't know how we can say that he was revered the world over; did he have followers/admirers from various countries? As their preceptor, did he give them any advice? What was the tenor of the advice? Without infringing the caste-based rules which he expounded to the European, what and how did he give them religious advice.
 
Last edited:
I thought I should skip this thread, but it is too tempting.
For a change I agree with Yamaka, of course no argument with Sangom.
I do not think there is a supreme Hindu authority universally accepted to speak for Hinduism.
I have personally very little respect for anyone who speaks without due research.
There are various Hindu organization for converting non-hindu to hinduism. There are Hindu organizations to make any one a Hindu Brahmin. I do not personally believe in conversion. We all have limited knowledge. Here there are Anglo-Saxon who sometime know much more about Hinduism than average Hindu.
Then it becomes even more important for so called teacher to be current with the present day world. If you do not know the answer say so, please do not manufacture an absurd answer.

K,
LOL I use purely when I am laughing with the post and agree with it. It is not used for laughing at the post. Generally it is good laugh, not bad.
 
namaste shrI Sangom.

I looked up the meaning of mindset in the Webster's New World Dictionary, which I have in my computer system. It says: "a fixed mental attitude formed by experience, education, prejudice, etc."

You might have any personal opinion about Swamiji, but you could avoid certain words and phrases in your statements, so as to express yourself in a fair, mature and just manner. Let me elaborate (emphasis added):

• You say that Swamiji "was so self-indoctrinated by his own knowledge about our scriptures, the various rules prescribed by them and so on..."

You know very well as every one of us here do that the Shringeri MaTham has an ancient tradition, coming down from Adi Shankara himself and that all the gurus of the MaTham learn and practise their shAstras in a strict guru-shiShya parampara--guru-student tradition.

Where is the scope for any self-indoctrination here? Aren't you using the phrase just to show your spite towards the pontiff of a renowned Shankara MaTham, just because he happens to be a traditional guru?

• You follow it up with your statement, "he could not visualize a world outside/other than the one which occupied his imagination and that was a world which functioned according to the scriptural rules."

This is even worse. You would probably know that a large number of TBs have the Shringeri MaTham as their family religious institution. Many of them have personally known and associated with the Shringeri AchAryas and seen how the gurus just don't preach but live their life according to the shAstras they preach, to keep up the tradition established by Adi Shankara. I don't know if you have any personal acquaintance with the Shringeri gurus.

Whatever the situtation in the outside world, the Shankara, VaishNava and other traditional MaTha AchAryas are bound by the Hindu Dharma in all its scriptural span and have their duty to teach it. Those AchAryas have on many occasions made it clear that neither they nor anyone has the authority to change or reform the scriptures.

You know well that traditional Hindu DharmAchAryas cannot swerve from their tradition, whatever be the time, need or situation. They travel all over the country and teach traditional dharma.

Therefore, how can a statement made by an erudite scholar like you who is well-versed in the scriptures that such AchAryas lived in an imaginary world and "could not visualize a world outside", be construed to be fair and made without any umbrage?

If, as you say, you have "no disrespect" for Swamiji--and his guru-shiShyas--we would expect you to express your opinions without offending their name or position just because you don't agree with their life and teachings. You can always express your criticism without offensive speculation based on your own prejudices.
 
namaste shrI Sangom.

I looked up the meaning of mindset in the Webster's New World Dictionary, which I have in my computer system. It says: "a fixed mental attitude formed by experience, education, prejudice, etc."

The Word Web dictionary says "A habitual or characteristic mental attitude that determines how you will interpret and respond to situations" and gives the synonyms as mentality, outlook.

You might have any personal opinion about Swamiji, but you could avoid certain words and phrases in your statements, so as to express yourself in a fair, mature and just manner. Let me elaborate (emphasis added):

• You say that Swamiji "was so self-indoctrinated by his own knowledge about our scriptures, the various rules prescribed by them and so on..."

You know very well as every one of us here do that the Shringeri MaTham has an ancient tradition, coming down from Adi Shankara himself and that all the gurus of the MaTham learn and practise their shAstras in a strict guru-shiShya parampara--guru-student tradition.

Where is the scope for any self-indoctrination here? Aren't you using the phrase just to show your spite towards the pontiff of a renowned Shankara MaTham, just because he happens to be a traditional guru?

There have been Acharyas subsequent to this personage also and I do not know whether the present pontiff can freely air such views about what is prescribed for one caste is not beneficial to the other castes, etc. I think it will be not in conformity with the Govt.'s law. But you may be in a better position to talk about that.

That was why I said he must have been so self-indoctrinated by his own knowledge about our scriptures, the various rules prescribed by them and so on. But since you now categorically and confidently assert that in the Guru-Sishya parampara there is no chance of any one acquiring any knowledge by his own efforts by studying the scriptural texts himself and each pontiff, like the proverbial Bourbonnes, learns nothing except, and forgets nothing of what his guru taught him, I stand corrected and will now like to say that the said guru was so indoctrinated by his knowledge about our scriptures, the various rules prescribed by them and so on as taught to him by his Guru.

• You follow it up with your statement, "he could not visualize a world outside/other than the one which occupied his imagination and that was a world which functioned according to the scriptural rules."

This is even worse. You would probably know that a large number of TBs have the Shringeri MaTham as their family religious institution. Many of them have personally known and associated with the Shringeri AchAryas and seen how the gurus just don't preach but live their life according to the shAstras they preach, to keep up the tradition established by Adi Shankara. I don't know if you have any personal acquaintance with the Shringeri gurus.

Whatever the situtation in the outside world, the Shankara, VaishNava and other traditional MaTha AchAryas are bound by the Hindu Dharma in all its scriptural span and have their duty to teach it. Those AchAryas have on many occasions made it clear that neither they nor anyone has the authority to change or reform the scriptures.

You know well that traditional Hindu DharmAchAryas cannot swerve from their tradition, whatever be the time, need or situation. They travel all over the country and teach traditional dharma.

Therefore, how can a statement made by an erudite scholar like you who is well-versed in the scriptures that such AchAryas lived in an imaginary world and "could not visualize a world outside", be construed to be fair and made without any umbrage?

If, as you say, you have "no disrespect" for Swamiji--and his guru-shiShyas--we would expect you to express your opinions without offending their name or position just because you don't agree with their life and teachings. You can always express your criticism without offensive speculation based on your own prejudices.

The one strong sentiment or threat, if I may say so, running through this write-up is, "I revere this Swamiji. Many people are his devout disciples. So you should write only what we like - nothing else." Most probably the bhaktas of Nityananda would also say the same thing but many may not like to agree now. If I say that the Swamiji could not visualize a world outside/other than the one which occupied his imagination and that was a world which functioned according to the scriptural rules., how is it disrespectful to that Swami? If he had the broad view arising out of knowledge of the outside world, would he have said

  • If water is beneficial to a thirsty man, does it follow that it will be beneficial to a man who has fever and therefore feels thirsty? (He did not know water is given to people with fever also when their tongue used to dry up, even in those days. Of course dehydration might have been unheard of then in Sringeri or anywhere in India.)


  • you must realize that there is nothing to show that a special rule of conduct prescribed for a particular caste will be beneficial to others.
To me the whole transcript shows up as the Swamiji's very narrow world view. I would like to say 'koopamandookam' but then it is likely to get you further agitated with நான் வணங்கும் சுவாமியாரை நீ எப்படி குறைவாய்ப் பேசலாம்? (How can you berate a Swamiji whom I hold in esteem?). So, I am not saying so.
 
Last edited:
....Whatever the situtation in the outside world, the Shankara, VaishNava and other traditional MaTha AchAryas are bound by the Hindu Dharma in all its scriptural span and have their duty to teach it. Those AchAryas have on many occasions made it clear that neither they nor anyone has the authority to change or reform the scriptures.

You know well that traditional Hindu DharmAchAryas cannot swerve from their tradition, whatever be the time, need or situation..
Saidevo, please rest assured I have no wish to show disrespect to any individual, let alone an acharya revered by many like you.

However, I request you to consider the fact that some who share your views on matters of religion show no restraint with their own insults directed at people who are revered by others. Take for example EVR, he is a much revered acharya for millions upon millions of our Tamil brothers and sisters. But these people routinely deride him in the most vile terms.

Another example of this behavior is the recent comment by our dear brother sarang comparing MMS to a monkey.

I am not holding you responsible for the behavior of others, it is just that showing disrespect to revered acharyas happens more often from the religious side directed at those free of religion.

Anyway, leaving that aside, I think the above quoted passage is quite telling.

This is what religion does, it demands absolute obedience to archaic texts that have no relevance to the present day conditions. The acharyas who can lead the masses out of this Ostrich like stance, instead, feel compelled by tradition to willingly imprison themselves within the walls of dictates of the sashtras.

To them these sasthras are divine, nobody has the authority to mess with it, however vile some of the rules may sound in the present day circumstances, these rules must be considered divine gifts and must be respected and revered.

This is what religion demands, as I have often stated, otherwise decent and loving people, including the acharyas, are made to act badly by this thing called religion.

Cheers!
 
namaste Nara.

As to your perception about what religion 'demands' and 'makes' of its followers, I have only this to say: the traditional AchAryas do not blindly follow and advocate the precepts of religion. They have, by their intense yoga-sAdhana, recognized and realized the divine hand behind all the dharma and karma in the world.

You might not believe in such yoga-sAdhana, but unless you are in a position to say that you have personally undergone such sAdhana and verified its futility, your words that the AchAryas have an 'Ostrich like stance', are confined within the walls of the shAstras and (mis)lead their followers with their own delusion, can only sound hollow.
 
namaste everyone.

The words chosen in reply to my post #31, by our two most popular members sarva-shrI Sangom and Nara, who are acknowledged scholars in Hindu Dharma, despite their current views and standing, are quite telling.

• Let us consider the following scenario. Suppose I am a shAstra-paNDitaH--scriptural expert, who have a wide and deep knowledge of our ancient scriptures, with critical insights into our Dharma ShAstras. For reasons that are best known to me, I am not convinced of the social order advocated in the Dharma ShAstras, so I hold independent and radically different views.

• The question is, does it all give me an edge over the revered ShankarAchAryas who are equally--if not more--well-versed with the same set of ancient scriptures? I might like to be forthright in my expressions with my no-nonsense language, but am I right to berate them with phrases like kUpamaNDUkam--frogs in the well?

• No, it does not. Unless and until I have accomplished the same level of yoga-siddhis by intense meditation that facilitates me to be rooted in nirvikalpa samAdhi (or the expanded consciousness of a savikalpa samAdhi as smt.HH would like to put it) at all times.

• If I had accomplished that Atma sAdhana, perhaps I could have recognized in experience, the Ishvara lIlA behind all the play of dharma and karma in the world.

• I could have realized the wisdom behind the famous Tamizh adage "அவன் இன்றி ஓர் அணுவும் அசையாது."--avan inRi Or aNuvum asaiyAdhu--"Without Him not a single atom vibrates" and had a glance at the big picture.

Without (the belief/willingness to undertake any Atma sAdhana), if I am adamant still, because I don't believe in the efficacy of such Atma sAdhana, then I would run the risk of credibility and wider acceptance of my own convictions that I seek to express by tarnishing the names and tradition of the great sages.
 
namaste everyone.

Let has try to get at the right perspective of Swamiji's following statement that has been made a contentious issue by Sangom in post #17.

On the other hand, you must realize that there is nothing to show that a special rule of conduct prescribed for a particular caste will be beneficial to others.

Although shrI PV Iyer has not quoted it, Swamiji says these words, following his above statement:

For, the mere fact that it is prescribed for that caste makes it a special law and, therefore, not applicable to the generality of mankind. If the Sastras are our only guide for telling us that a particular line of conduct is beneficial, we cannot throw them over-board when they tell us in the same breath for whom it is beneficial. Our system and, in fact, any system which aims at the regulations of conduct must be based on the principle of adhikAra or competency. Those who belong to the castes are competent to pursue the VisheSha Dharma; the others are competent to pursue only SAmAnya Dharma. Further, the nature of competency required can be learnt only from the Sastras which prescribed the Dharma.


What is the problem with these statements of a DharmAchArya? Why should our reformers here charaterise him as a kUpamaNDUkam--frogs in the well, for teaching what is taught in the shAstras, which is, afterall, his dharma and karma?

• Although the word caste (implying jAti) is used in translation, there is no doubt that Swamiji only refers to the four classes of occupation--chatur varNas, when he speaks about the visheSha dharma prescribed for in our shAstras.

• What is wrong with the prescription of adhikAra--competency, to follow the dharma of each varNa--class of occupation? Don't we have such prescriptions and strict rules of conduct for the various worldly varNas--occupations in the modern world?

• Before our reformists jump at me, let me say that, yes, our shAstras prescribe birth as the deciding factor for a specific varNa, which precludes people from other varNas, however competent they might be, from changing over.

• What is wrong with this prescription as a law? There are always two things: law and convention. The law is a law which cannot be annulled where it is traditional and prescribed by our shAstras. At the same time, there have always been instances throughout the history of our land, of people moving across varNas by convention, with due recognition of their competence.

• The point is that such convention can never become a law, specially in Hindu Dharma, for the simple reason that no one has the authority to change our shAstras, although the convention might in practice make the law irrevant and eventually ineffective.

• This means that a DharmAchArya cannot be teaching anything contrary to the laws of the shAstras, although/even if he might personally be in favour of the conventions that prevail and shape up. This further means that we cannot fault a DharmAchArya by calling names, for teaching traditional dharma which is his duty.

• Another fact that the reformers cannot deny is the convention of birth and dynasty that prevails today, especially in the elite professions such as politics, medicine, sports, cinema, etc.

• Coming to the contentious issue that there is nothing to show that a special rule of conduct prescribed for a particular caste will be beneficial to others, in what way the rules of conduct of a doctor, professor, scientist, banker, sportsperson or a politician are beneficial to the people who are not in these occupations?

• This is not to say that the services of a person in an elite profession is not beneficial to others. There is a difference between rules of conduct and service. In the chatur-varNa system, a brahmin has specific obligations of service towards people in the other varNas, in the same way that a doctor or professor today has obligations towards the society.

It is obvious that our reformers are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and confuse the issues, when they come across the slightest mention of the words caste and class in discussions of Hindu Dharma.

I would request shrI P.V.Iyer to continue posting his 'excerpts'.
 
It is obvious that our reformers are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and confuse the issues, when they come across the slightest mention of the words caste and class in discussions of Hindu Dharma.

I would request shrI P.V.Iyer to continue posting his 'excerpts'.

Dear Shri Saidevo,

Who is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill, can be seen clearly, no need to make special exhortations, imho. There are two simultaneous molehills being enlarged to mountains here; one is the perceived lack of respect for the head of a matham who is no more and was held in high esteem during his lifetime by a predominantly brahmin bhaktagoshti and some royal families. He might have been very respected, learnt whatever was taught him by his guru and faithfully abided by your principle that beyond whatever his guru taught him, he had no authority to learn, assimilate, introspect and thus get self-indoctrinated. You may now be able to guess the second molehill, I believe.

But today we are living in a different era and ethos as regards these mathams and their utility to even the very brahmin society which was the fertile land on which such mathams and their perceived greatness, inviolability, etc., grew once upon a time. It is therefore no sacrilege to look at these mathams from a different angle imho. The legend is that these mathams were instituted by Sankara and the pontiff- or Acharya-to-be is selected by the existing Acharya, then this new Acharya-to-be is given necessary training and all that, and finally installed one day. But it is commonly known that this is as much mundane and unholy a process like say Sonia grooming Rahul to take over from her.

In the Sringeri legends themselves it is common knowledge that one Manager of the Matham nourished an ambition to install his son as the next Acharya, which fell through and as a revenge he tried to poison the unwilling pontiff to death. If such was the attitude of the very manager of the matham, less said the better about all the grandiose things you reel out about that matham. It is just yet another occupational avenue and is full of all the defects and evils of the secular world.

I know one old brahmin who was a great bhakta of Sringeri matha and wanted the then Acharya [Abhinava Vidyateertha (AVT)?] to stay in his extra house and wanted to do all the kainkaryams, during the visit of the Acharya to his village. But his son, who belonged to my grandfather's generation, refused to cooperate saying that "these fellows are of no use to the ordinary people and only tend to live comfortably without doing any work". I heard that this AVT was a highly short-tempered person and it seems there were some heated verbal exchanges between this non-conformist son and himself (AVT).

The Kanchi mutt was not accepted by the northern pundits and it has hit the nadir now, in just two known Acharyas. JS is not the Acharya material and has got into great difficulty. Even outwardly devoted bhaktas of kanchi mutt in our forum may have their own views if you approach personally; one of them told me "nothing can be done to improve the state of affairs of the Matham".

In such circumstances, I believe we stop looking at these Mathadhipathis as something like "God who walks" and commence viewing them as just ordinary mortals like us, but ones who have taken up a different line of occupation. Perhaps Sankara's "udara nimittam bahukrita veshah" applies even to them. I therefore feel such persons should also be not above public criticism just as Nara has said about EVR. In both cases a large number of people hold them in high esteem but those who do not do so and view them as just another ordinary mortal, criticise them. In the case of EVR our theist friends berate him as worst (?) as they can.
 
Last edited:
namaste shrI Sangom.

If you are, as a follower of EVR, prepared to overlook his human tendencies such as being hypocritical, selfish, greedy, money-minded and adharmic in other ways, then we as discerning devotees of ShankarAchAryas overlook the play of human tendencies. If we are dumb on that score, so are you and other followers of EVR, simple as that.
 
namaste shrI Sangom.

If you are, as a follower of EVR, prepared to overlook his human tendencies such as being hypocritical, selfish, greedy, money-minded and adharmic in other ways, then we as discerning devotees of ShankarAchAryas overlook the play of human tendencies. If we are dumb on that score, so are you and other followers of EVR, simple as that.

Dear Shri Saidevo,

You seem to be slowly retreating but without giving it up. We did not say anything about, against or in disparaging terms about what attitude you or your cohorts may hold for the heads of mathams and Acharyas, etc. I made some remarks, which is my personal view, about one Acharya and it is you who took up the cudgels and wrote the following:

"Those who accuse our traditional gurus of having a mindset of a bygone era, those who run away with their outbursts just for the sake of venting their ire, and those who support such ourburst, forget that their action in turn speaks of their own mindset, specially when it concerns sages who are revered by Hindus the world over." and also some other things.

Did I say that the Acharyas were "hypocritical, selfish, greedy, money-minded and adharmic"? I only tried to say that the said Swamiji must have been so much influenced by his own studies and interpretation of the scriptures that he was unable to see the way in which the world at large and probably, his own mainstay viz.,the brahmana community, was evolving. Hence it is the theists who are at fault in insinuating EVR.

BTW, the OP says "(Selective extracts only) Dialogues with the Guru R. Krishnaswamy Iyer A European Gentleman came to see him. " How does the Sringeri Swami come into the discussion, I wonder! Can you explain pl?
 
You and people who are in the same situation want to practice what they believe in and acknowledge that those with conflicting views are free to do what they want, But the atheist group wants to destroy us and have said it so many times in so many ways. Sanathana dharma gave a free space for all to practice what they want, but the alien religions and neo converts want to destroy the basic fabric of hinduism; and 'kill brahmin first if you see a snake and a brahmin" mindset is ingrained in some.

namaste shrI Sangom.

If you are, as a follower of EVR, prepared to overlook his human tendencies such as being hypocritical, selfish, greedy, money-minded and adharmic in other ways, then we as discerning devotees of ShankarAchAryas overlook the play of human tendencies. If we are dumb on that score, so are you and other followers of EVR, simple as that.
 
The main opposition of the opposing section is that the Acharyal is asking people to understand that Dharma is related to one/\'s birth. The Acharyal in a very clear way dismantles all this opposition by proposing that no Human is born without a source of inspiration to reach God. He says that it would be a very mean God if he created a path that was not known to some. It is apparent that a broadminded God would have a path ready for everyone. Not all have heard the Vedas or Krishna or Shiva. Not all have heard of Jesus either nor the Holy Quran. This is an indirect way of telling us that every religion is leading to God. Is this absurd?

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa proved that all religions lead to God.

Why should we leave the religion of our birth? It is a folly to presume that a religion which can lead a man to God is not worthy at all. He does not only say that man made religions are always imperfect , but he also says that no religion is without base in something earlier which was a revelation from God.

People might have objection to Mohammed. But Mohammed picked up his religion from something before him. So even if he did not have revelations his ideas were still based on revelations. More imperfect a religion is, more shortlived it is. We can reasonably say that religions which have survived thousand years have some strong background in revelations and inspiration from God. Here let us not mince words to say that essential hinduism is even today the oldest religion. So many sects which have had major shortcomings have submerged into the greater hinduism. They did not die they just merged.

Is there a need for Visesha Dharma? There need be no doubt on this score. How can murder by a warrior be acceptable for a layman. A warrior can kill, but can the layman kill?

Do we not have background checks to get into the army? Then there are exams to further test the competency. Just because somebody is not competent to be a Doctor does not mean he is not competent to be a warrior. Just because somebody has the ability to be a good warrior does not mean he can be accepted into the army! To be accepted into the army it should also be necessary for the person to furnish details of his loyalty to the country. He could not be accepted if he is found compromising on certain things. On the other hand he might still be acceptable in another profession.

Acharyal says that Sanathana Dharma is a universal faith due to the fact that it contains Samanya Dharma applicable to all humans. Only the Visesha Dharma is exclusive, and exclusive on grounds of competency and no other criteria. Bhagwat Gita says that the varnas are created based on Gunas and Karma. If this criteria mentioned in Gita is not competency what else it is. No other religion says that its basic laws can be followed by people of other religions without converting to it. No other religion says that one can be fully benefited in life even if one does not give up one\'s own birth religion. If there is another such religion please name it and find out how essentially different it is from Sanathana Dharma. This is a sufficient ground to respect his views that Hinduism is a universal religion. And as the Acharyal says , he cannot put the claim any lower.

Christianity or Islam may have their claim on how some born before christ may have had ways of saving their souls. They do not claim that an Egyptian by following his religion sincerely, a tribe by following his religion sincerely all these people ignoring completely the judeo-christianic tenets, even if they heard of them, could still be on the right path to godhead. However Hinduism as taught by the Vedas indeed makes this claim. This is the point of Acharyal. If Hinduism does make this claim there is no alternative but to concede its claim of universality.

A further test is by checking whether there is a Dharma in another religion not essentially within ours? There may be outwardly differences, but all these religions could easily approximate themselves to some sect within hinduism. That is why Kushwant Singh called Hinduism a Boa Constrictor which swallows all the religions by its side. His worry was about the Sikhs . He is not wrong .Unless there are external disturbances and trouble makers, all religions in India tend to sooner or later sort out themselves into a sect of hinduism.

I find his arguments very logical. I will post more of his arguments and hope people understand the brilliance of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
European: I understand your point, but Swamiji you have made the assumption that man is not capable of finding out the means of salvation himself and that he requires somebody , be it God, to point it out to him

Swamigal : Before he can possibly find out the means, man must first know that there is something to be striven for. That there is such a something can be known by us only if somebody who partakes of that something, or has realized it in actual experience, informs us about its experience. This information coming from beyond the range of our experience is itself in the nature of a revelation. Further how can one possibly know for certain that a particular course of conduct does lead to salvation,unless this is taught to us by somebody who has pursued that particular course and has attained salvation or by somebody who by his omniscience is able to visualize at the sametime the pathway as well as the Goal or by somebody who is the goal itself? In the first alternative the question will arise, how did that somebody know before he entered on the course of conduct which he so successfully followed. In the second alternative, the question how did he attain such an omniscience will require an answer. Therefore the third alternative which traces all revelation to God himself is the only logical hypothesis.

European: Certainly we need no revelation to teach us that God exists. The means of knowing him may be difficult to understand and some guidance may be necessary from those who have known him. But the fact of God\'s existence does not require any revelation, for we can ourselves infer it by the aid of our reasoning faculty.

Swaimgal : If the existence of God is so patent a fact and so easily inferable, how do you account for atheists and agnostics in the world? Do you mean to say that their powers of intellect and capacity for reasoning are in anyway inferior to yours? On the other hand, you will find that the thinkers who have taken the trouble to think out the existence of God and failed are men of extraordinary intellect. Their failure to prove God is not due to any fault in their intellectual equipment, but to the fact that God is essentially uninferable. Further assuming that by the aid of reasoning you can infer the existence of God, who told you that there is a God to be inferred? Certainly you depend upon some previous information for that knowledge. If somebody tells you that there is a God, you may try your reasoning powers at proving him. If you have never heard of God at all, there is nothing to incite or awaken your powers of reasoning.
 
I support the basic point that Sri Sangom makes in his post.
I respect the Knowledge any learned person holds. I do not have much respect for religious chair.
We had been invited to visit the Kanchi matt, we were invited for 'special' meeting. The acharya made it a point to 'ignore' a lady who had put out her hand (she was widow, somebody wispered in acharya's ear). I lost all respect for such a in-human being.
Just because someone reveres a person he does not become a universally revered person. Comments uttered in the past may have been valid at that time, but expressed here in TB site may not be valid as it is now. I do not respect ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Sangom sir says
I heard that this AVT was a highly short-tempered person and it seems there were some heated verbal exchanges between this non-conformist son and himself (AVT).
This is bound to confuse the gullible. What does the episode say. What was the discussion between the Acharya and this non-conformist. Who presented the version of story. What is his level of understanding. There is nothing wrong even if an Acharya fumes or scolds a non-conformist disobedient son. What was said by the son. Without all of this such a quote is unacceptable. I request Sangom Sir to provide the complete context and not just throw stones, very well sure that none is going to throw back at him. Blunt accusations do not do him a favor. We believe that even Acharyals can show anger, but with a clear purpose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear PVIyer, you may see this as a distraction, if so, perhaps you may request Praveen to move the thread to another forum, but then, there you may not get as many eyeballs to your posts as you would here in this forum.

Okay, now, with due apologies to PVIyer for the distraction,

...., but unless you are in a position to say that you have personally undergone such sAdhana and verified its futility, your words that the AchAryas have an 'Ostrich like stance', are confined within the walls of the shAstras and (mis)lead their followers with their own delusion, can only sound hollow.
Saidevo, have you undergone this sadhana you are talking about and verified that it is true? If not how can you be sure that the acharya has adopted this technique to verify the validity of all sashthras?

Saidevo, I know I can't convince you, but my hope is that young readers will be persuaded to think -- can it be true that nobody has the authority, not even the most revered Acharyas, to change even a small syllable of these anachronistic Varna rules because these rules have been verified to be authentic by the acharya undergoing this thing called sadhana? Even if a handful of youngsters start to think along these lines I think I have made a difference for the good.


...If you are, as a follower of EVR, prepared to overlook his human tendencies such as being hypocritical, selfish, greedy, money-minded and adharmic in other ways, then we as discerning devotees of ShankarAchAryas overlook the play of human tendencies. If we are dumb on that score, so are you and other followers of EVR, simple as that.
Saidevo, you just proved my point, why must we trade insults, can't we not stick to the issues?

Cheers!
 
Originally posted by pviyer (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/7362-excerpts-dialogue-guru-5.html#post101705)

Do we not have background checks to get into the army? Then there are exams to further test the competency. Just because somebody is not competent to be a Doctor does not mean he is not competent to be a warrior. Just because somebody has the ability to be a good warrior does not mean he can be accepted into the army! To be accepted into the army it should also be necessary for the person to furnish details of his loyalty to the country. He could not be accepted if he is found compromising on certain things. On the other hand he might still be acceptable in another profession.

Acharyal says that Sanathana Dharma is a universal faith due to the fact that it contains Samanya Dharma applicable to all humans. Only the Visesha Dharma is exclusive, and exclusive on grounds of competency and no other criteria. Bhagwat Gita says that the varnas are created based on Gunas and Karma. If this criteria mentioned in Gita is not competency what else it is.

Shri Iyer,

The real crux of the problem, imho, is that the "visesha dharma" referred to by the Acharya does not belong to the above categories. A brahmin is a brahmin by birth, and there is no exams to check the background, competence, calling for his loyalty to brahminness or Sanatana Dharma, etc. Nor is there (nor was there at any time in the historical past, right from the Sunga times) any method to assess whether a born brahmin or, say, a born Sudra was competent in any other profession. Don't you agree?

It is such a Visesha Dharma - in which the brahmana inherited his braahmanyam just by the accident of birth - which the learned Acharya has been defending imo.
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa proved that all religions lead to God.
How and when? And to whom? Can you kindly elaborate? If Ramakrishna had proved that, why was his chosen disciple singing bombastic paens about Hindu religion alone and that too to westerners, mostly?

Why should we leave the religion of our birth? It is a folly to presume that a religion which can lead a man to God is not worthy at all. He does not only say that man made religions are always imperfect , but he also says that no religion is without base in something earlier which was a revelation from God.

People might have objection to Mohammed. But Mohammed picked up his religion from something before him. So even if he did not have revelations his ideas were still based on revelations. More imperfect a religion is, more shortlived it is. We can reasonably say that religions which have survived thousand years have some strong background in revelations and inspiration from God. Here let us not mince words to say that essential hinduism is even today the oldest religion. So many sects which have had major shortcomings have submerged into the greater hinduism. They did not die they just merged.
Sir, there is absolutely no suggestion here to anyone leaving his/her religion of birth or religion of choice. The point at issue is whether what the said Acharya said to the European enquirer is relevant today and whether digging out all those archaeological things has any use for the future generation.
 
You and people who are in the same situation want to practice what they believe in and acknowledge that those with conflicting views are free to do what they want, But the atheist group wants to destroy us and have said it so many times in so many ways. Sanathana dharma gave a free space for all to practice what they want, but the alien religions and neo converts want to destroy the basic fabric of hinduism; and 'kill brahmin first if you see a snake and a brahmin" mindset is ingrained in some.

Shri Sarang,

Every one is free to practice his/her own beliefs under the Indian constitution, I believe. That is not the question here. Nor will anyone object to posts of this type if only Shri PV Iyer had posted it under "Philosophy and Traditions", "Religion", etc., sub-forums under the main tamilbrahmins.com Forum. (Pl see Tamil Brahmins Forum - Brahmins World).

But it has been observed that the group which you describe as "You and people who are in the same situation", tend to post under the sub-forum "General Discussions" in which Shri Praveen has allowed freedom of expression for diverse points of view, including the atheistic, non-believers and others who may not toe the line of "You and people who are in the same situation".

Hence, when Shri iyer's OP was commented upon by some other members according to their beliefs, Shri Saidevo appeared on the scene with a vakalat on behalf of Shri iyer, the swamiji, sanatana dharma, etc. My question is if Shri iyer wanted only to share the Acharya's dialogues with like-minded people who will pat one another's back and feel happy and contented, he should properly have started his thread in one of the exclusive sub-forums like "Philosophy and Traditions", "Religion". Instead of that here is a sly attempt, typical of brahmins I think, of one person just starting the thread and others making a big hue and cry subsequently. If this is not the cowardly way of trying to score over the atheistsm Bsbas and others, what else is this?

I will request Shri Praveen to move this thread to Religion and remove whatever posts he feels should not appear. Shri iyer may also inform Praveen whether he is agreeable to this.
 
I will request Shri Praveen to move this thread to Religion and remove whatever posts he feels should not appear. Shri iyer may also inform Praveen whether he is agreeable to this.

Moved to the religion section. Will wait for Shri Iyer's message before removing/editing any posts.
 
namaste Nara.

You said in post #45:
Saidevo, have you undergone this sadhana you are talking about and verified that it is true? If not how can you be sure that the acharya has adopted this technique to verify the validity of all sashthras?

That's easy. I am sure of my AchArya in the same way that you are sure of the discoveries and inventions of science, without having a first-hand verification of them.

I know I can't convince you, but my hope is that young readers will be persuaded to think -- can it be true that nobody has the authority, not even the most revered Acharyas, to change even a small syllable of these anachronistic Varna rules because these rules have been verified to be authentic by the acharya undergoing this thing called sadhana?

If it is not true, why every traditional AchArya, of both Advaita and VA traditions, say that our shAstras are unalterable? I don't think we know better than our AchAryas about the repercussions that might ensue if our shAstras are changed.

As for the anachronism, although we no longer use the old-model telephones, cars and rail engines we still see them well preserved and used in Hollywood films dealing with the life of those times. In a similar way, let us have our shAstras for a minority of traditional Hindus, although they might seem anachronistic to many or even most Hindus. Just like the Atheists are under no obligation to follow any rules of conduct book, what harm is there if the cosmopolitan Hindus too want to have no obligation towards our shAstras and so ignore them?

Saidevo, you just proved my point, why must we trade insults, can't we not stick to the issues?

You know that I did not start it. And I know it would be too much for you to advise your friend Sangom about the transgressions in his post #37, that had no relevance to the purported contents of this thread.
 
Moved to the religion section. Will wait for Shri Iyer\'s message before removing/editing any posts.
Let this continue in this section. I intentionally started in the General Discussions so that ideas can be freely exchanged on his views but not another round of statements irrelevant to the topic. However that does not mean another round of poking fun on acharyas , making statements irrelevant to the topic under discussion can be made. Nara Sir has behaved responsibly in this . His questions pertained to the topic. I hope praveen you will look into this. There are plenty of statements which are made , which have no relevance to the discussion at hand. Making baseless accusations on Acharya is certainly not part of the deal even if it were under General Discussions.

There is no sly attempt to incite confusion or fight among members. This is one of the other unfounded accusations. I am literally typing these excerpts with my book in hand. Carefully digesting the topic line by line from the book and presenting it in the forum and not doing cut copy paste from any website. Does this look like a sly attempt to incite a fight?

I have no problems with arguments on a topic itself and my intention is to logically establish the view points of the Acharyal. But making loose remarks without logically responding to statements, making accusations on Abhinava Thirtha etc is uncalled for.

I would request sensible members like Nara to participate in discussion keeping in focus only the arguments of Acharyal. I am not worried about argument being proven wrong. I am confident of logically presenting my view. So praveen please use your knowledge of the forum rules and your wisdom to categorize the thread and make amendments. Request you to kindly remove unproven allegations , wherever you put the thread. Ultimately I want the points to be logically discussed without deviations and wild allegations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top