• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • 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.

Who are We? - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Sri KRS,

There are many points on which you like to speak on both sides of your mouth. Whatever it is, it makes me tired of reading this thread. Good luck with your quest if you have one.

How could you call me secular? But I am, thank you!!


"Well, calling me as 'secular' seems to me that I am being called names. I do not understand what part(s) of my discussion point has led you to charecterize me as such. But, regardless, as I have said, I don't mind being called a 'secularist' if the correct definition of the word is implied."


 
Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,
My reponses are in blue.
Dear Sri KRS,

Of course we can discuss texts, if that's what you'd prefer.

But texts are just that - texts.

I, for one, am not enamored by words but by the truths they contain.

If reclamation of some of those truths is what you seek then intuition is the way to go.

I agree with your assessment. Hwever, as you have mentioned elsewhere these postings of sayings from the Stalwarts is used as a reference point.

But if you want to discuss an external social factor like relationship with other 'Varnas' (to me they exist in today's context as castes and jathis) that is a different story. We had a system were the centripetal and centrifugal forces of society were kept in check not only by different occupational classifications but by the acknowledgement and respect of each caste (varna?) of the other.

We don't live in a context where people respect one another for what their occupations are/should be. So the relationship between the varnas (?) has to be engineered by well meaning and publicly respected representatives of those divisions.

In my view we are very far away from this reality.

I need a little bit more clarity on the type of answer you want - Who are we in what context? Spiritual or social? To me it seems like you move back and forth between these two realms so I find it hard to present an answer that might satisfy you.

Unfortunately we can noe seperate the spiritual and the social in our religion. There have been two differing views on defining 'who we are' and more importantly, how 'why we are'. I would like to explore this with a few more postings from the likes of Vivekanada swamy ji and the Mahatma. This will throw clarity on what the issue is.

It will be great if you can provide this clarity before you post another set of postings. We are in the second part of this thread and have read the postings you've contributed but I feel it is time to clarify what exactly you are looking for.

I hope I have given clarity above. But if you feel that my postings are creating unnecessary turmoil, then I do not need to post anymore also. I will gladly be silent.

Pranams,
KRS


Regards,
Chintana
 
Dear Sri KRS,

There are many points on which you like to speak on both sides of your mouth. Whatever it is, it makes me tired of reading this thread. Good luck with your quest if you have one.

How could you call me secular? But I am, thank you!!

"Well, calling me as 'secular' seems to me that I am being called names. I do not understand what part(s) of my discussion point has led you to charecterize me as such. But, regardless, as I have said, I don't mind being called a 'secularist' if the correct definition of the word is implied."



Dear Sri Amoorkan Ji,

I have enough trouble talking with one side of my mouth with clarity, how can I accomplish the feat you are saying I am doing, with both sides of my mouth?

Thank you for your encouragement towards my 'quest'.

Pranams,
KRS
 
Freedom of Speech

Listen guys
When we started this forum (started by Praveen), our aim was to allow anybody to express his/her views, comments or what have you. If somebody else has anything to say -- for or against -- let them speak thru these postings. But I will be damned if some people are going to come in and tell what a member should or shouldn't write; it is the freedom of speech, my friend!
Sri KRS, I think you should go ahead with your postings. As Chintana has pointed out, if someone has something to counter your postings, then let them do it with proper backing; don't get down to name-calling or get personal. That is not the Brahminical way! 'secular' or not!
When will we come together as a community and discuss and debate our differing viewpoints in a cultured and non-confrontational way?
I am completely lost in this acrimonious postings!!


quote-KRS<<I hope I have given clarity above. But if you feel that my postings are creating unnecessary turmoil, then I do not need to post anymore also. I will gladly be silent.>>
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri KRS,

The maroon italics...

Dear Sri KRS,

Of course we can discuss texts, if that's what you'd prefer.

But texts are just that - texts.

I, for one, am not enamored by words but by the truths they contain.

If reclamation of some of those truths is what you seek then intuition is the way to go.

I agree with your assessment. Hwever, as you have mentioned elsewhere these postings of sayings from the Stalwarts is used as a reference point.


Yes. But using references without being clear about the argument/point of view one is building, is a little tiring.

It will be great if you could a little more specific about one or two questions and THEN cite these sources.


But if you want to discuss an external social factor like relationship with other 'Varnas' (to me they exist in today's context as castes and jathis) that is a different story. We had a system were the centripetal and centrifugal forces of society were kept in check not only by different occupational classifications but by the acknowledgement and respect of each caste (varna?) of the other.

We don't live in a context where people respect one another for what their occupations are/should be. So the relationship between the varnas (?) has to be engineered by well meaning and publicly respected representatives of those divisions.

In my view we are very far away from this reality.

I need a little bit more clarity on the type of answer you want - Who are we in what context? Spiritual or social? To me it seems like you move back and forth between these two realms so I find it hard to present an answer that might satisfy you.

Unfortunately we can noe seperate the spiritual and the social in our religion. There have been two differing views on defining 'who we are' and more importantly, how 'why we are'. I would like to explore this with a few more postings from the likes of Vivekanada swamy ji and the Mahatma. This will throw clarity on what the issue is.


Perhaps one cannot be separated from the other. But there is a thing called 'analytical purposes'. So I do believe that some amount of separation is needed here.

Also, being spiritual involves going within. Being social involves more of a horizontal spread. Though both may be connected they do get played out very differently and some ideas applicable to one sphere may not be applicable to another sphere.

So I do need more clarity.


It will be great if you can provide this clarity before you post another set of postings. We are in the second part of this thread and have read the postings you've contributed but I feel it is time to clarify what exactly you are looking for.

I hope I have given clarity above. But if you feel that my postings are creating unnecessary turmoil, then I do not need to post anymore also. I will gladly be silent.


It is not about turmoil. I am more concerned about clarity. I think in one of my postings (a while ago) I mentioned that we need to break up complex issues into smaller pieces, debate each piece out and then proceed subsequently building on the conclusions agreed upon through debate. This is the clarity I am worried about. I felt that I did give you an answer along similar lines sometime ago and my content got a little repetitious this time. I want to avoid that.

So if you could give us a synopsis of your list of questions under the broad topic Who are we? - how many of those have been answered and how many remain to be answered that will be great. I do need a little bit of stock-taking here.



Pranams,
KRS


Regards,
Chintana
 
Dear Admin you want us to write the same way you want?

We focus special attention on issues that present in-depth views of the history of the community so that we may learn facts and balanced views about Brahmins and recognize uninformed opinions in our day-to-day lives.
Tamilbrahmins.com

When we started this forum (started by Praveen), our aim was to allow anybody to express his/her views, comments or what have you. If somebody else has anything to say -- for or against -- let them speak thru these postings. But I will be damned if some people are going to come in and tell what a member should or shouldn't write; it is the freedom of speech, my friend!
Silverfox

So if you could give us a synopsis of your list of questions under the broad topic Who are we? - how many of those have been answered and how many remain to be answered that will be great. I do need a little bit of stock-taking here.
Chintana


Sir,

What Shri.KRS sir has written is in simple English and understandable to even persons like me who know a little bit of that language.

I don’t understand what the admin wants? You want all members to write on the same way you think or wish ? Is it not better to allow members to place their views and just allow others who wish to discuss to post their views and leave the conclusion to the respective persons? Or in the name of admin you wish to pronounce a final answer to all the postings? Who can give answer to the wrong doing in the history ?

Some time the pill may be bitter to swallow but in the interest of cure we should learn to swallow that.

gurumurthyji
 
Dear Sri Gurumurthji,

The maroon italics are my responses.

We focus special attention on issues that present in-depth views of the history of the community so that we may learn facts and balanced views about Brahmins and recognize uninformed opinions in our day-to-day lives.
Tamilbrahmins.com

When we started this forum (started by Praveen), our aim was to allow anybody to express his/her views, comments or what have you. If somebody else has anything to say -- for or against -- let them speak thru these postings. But I will be damned if some people are going to come in and tell what a member should or shouldn't write; it is the freedom of speech, my friend!
Silverfox

So if you could give us a synopsis of your list of questions under the broad topic Who are we? - how many of those have been answered and how many remain to be answered that will be great. I do need a little bit of stock-taking here.
Chintana

---
Sir,

What Shri.KRS sir has written is in simple English and understandable to even persons like me who know a little bit of that language.

How many of his postings have you read on this specific thread? Have you read any in the Part I of this thread?

I don’t understand what the admin wants?

What Silverfox meant: Members have freedom of speech - discussion on any topic is welcome; This does not mean members can use abusive language toward one another - he made this comment in specific reference to Kamakshi's posting. Have you read that?

What I meant: I wanted KRS to be clear about what question he was asking. If you haven't noticed already we have had a few intense debates on spiritual and social questions - I have not seen you be part of that debate. So I don't know how much you understand the issue at hand.


You want all members to write on the same way you think or wish ?

No. We want members to write with good logic and reasoning. Otherwise things can quickly escalate to name-calling and bad-mouthing.

Is it not better to allow members to place their views and just allow others who wish to discuss to post their views and leave the conclusion to the respective persons?

That's how it has been happening. So I don't understand where this question is coming from.

Or in the name of admin you wish to pronounce a final answer to all the postings?

This is a very unfair comment Gurumurthiji. The admin has been doing its level best to not impose our views on anybody. Our roles as moderators has strictly been towards guiding any given discussion. We check to see if the arguments are sound - if there is proper backing especially for controversial claims. Some of us are better at debates than others but that doesn't mean anybody is trying to impose their views.


Who can give answer to the wrong doing in the history ?

Certainly not the admin, if that's what you are asking!


Some time the pill may be bitter to swallow but in the interest of cure we should learn to swallow that.

Please explain this statement.

gurumurthyji

Regards,
Chintana
 
I did not mean unfair to you Chintanaji!!!!

Sow.Chintanaji,

The marune color is yours:

How many of his postings have you read on this specific thread? Have you read any in the Part I of this thread?

Almost all his postings Chintanaji including the very first of part I. On this very same thread I even remember to have once or twice reminded KRS sir to post further. But I am not a highly literate person with good memory power like you spiritually or socially like others and I am only an ordinary [saamaaniyan] tamil Brahmin who lost his life in Chennai and searching for that in Delhi for the lost 15 years. By the way is this the way you ask questions with elders like me or do you think some better ways are there which gives us some sort of comfort to talk further?

What Silverfox meant: Members have freedom of speech - discussion on any topic is welcome; This does not mean members can use abusive language toward one another - he made this comment in specific reference to Kamakshi's posting. Have you read that?


Yes I read that !

What I meant: I wanted KRS to be clear about what question he was asking. If you haven't noticed already we have had a few intense debates on spiritual and social questions - I have not seen you be part of that debate. So I don't know how much you understand the issue at hand.


Most poor tamil Brahmins are illiterate like me and can not understand spiritual discussion of high order in a foreign language. Some more are in urban or in big cities standing on the cross road? Some privileged among us are settled in foreign countries not knowing where there life is. Our web site is the proof and please notice that out of 1000 or so members hardly a few hundreds take part in discussions. Balance 90% do only watch the threads and trying to understand who are we or what and where are we!! So if you prescribe that taking part in the debate only qualifies me for asking questions then I humbly say my pranams and keep quite.

No. We want members to write with good logic and reasoning. Otherwise things can quickly escalate to name-calling and bad-mouthing.


My humble view is that any thing written politely and with due respect to others should be acceptable. What one feels good logic and reasoning not necessarily be the same to some others. Disrespect is un brahminic and to be corrected.

That's how it has been happening. So I don't understand where this question is coming from.


No ! some time asking to split the point in to smaller points etc also lead to totally losing the original. E.g., you split this in to part II – So the original author is lost and you become the author in all such splits. Please do not give me technical reasons for this. This is wrong and to be corrected. Also summing up again of somebody’s point diverts the attention and delays the flow.

This is a very unfair comment Gurumurthiji. The admin has been doing its level best to not impose our views on anybody. Our roles as moderators has strictly been towards guiding any given discussion. We check to see if the arguments are sound - if there is proper backing especially for controversial claims. Some of us are better at debates than others but that doesn't mean anybody is trying to impose their views.

Very sorry Chintanaji… sorry I never meant to be un fair to you. By and large all of you are doing a good service and I only took the privilege of guiding whenever I felt deviation. Nothing more than that.

Certainly not the admin, if that's what you are asking!

Let us see whether any useful message emerge out of all the discussions and ultimately the community benefits !!!


Please explain this statement.


Simple. Out of this discussion if we have to accept and rectify our mistakes we have to come forward to do that even if it is painful. Also we have to change the molding pattern of the community from the young age. The qualities that we have to inculcate from the younger age, have to be identified and accepted even it is painful.

gurumurthyji
 
Response to Gurumurthiji - I

Dear Sri Gurumurthiji,

My responses in purple below...

Sow.Chintanaji,

The marune color is yours:

How many of his postings have you read on this specific thread? Have you read any in the Part I of this thread?

Almost all his postings Chintanaji including the very first of part I. On this very same thread I even remember to have once or twice reminded KRS sir to post further.

So the next time you mention a point like the one you did, it will be helpful to express how much familiarity you have with the issue. Too often posters read only the last posting and respond just to that. I have encountered this problem several times. Also, your question did not convey to me that you had indeed read all those postings. So I had to ask this question.


But I am not a highly literate person with good memory power like you spiritually or socially like others and I am only an ordinary [saamaaniyan] tamil Brahmin who lost his life in Chennai and searching for that in Delhi for the lost 15 years.

I apologize if I am reading this wrong but the questions you are asking me and the kind of respect you demand do not speak of such humility.

By the way is this the way you ask questions with elders like me or do you think some better ways are there which gives us some sort of comfort to talk further?

I am glad you asked this question and I am delighted to answer it. Here are my responses.

First of all, I don't believe I was disrespectful. I merely asked if you had read the postings. I don't know why a direct question offended you so much. I had no idea what your age was - we in the admin do not check the personal profile of every poster before we respond. There are conditions under which looking at a person's profile becomes important - such as annoying or offensive postings. To the best of my knowledge you haven't posted anything like that till date. So there was no reason for me to look at your profile.

Secondly, we encourage being anonymous in the forum only so that members can express their opinion without the bindings that exist in the real world - such as age, gender, north/south divide, rich/poor. The idea is that a good idea can come from anybody. And if it is indeed good it should be taken as such by everybody.

Thirdly, I am a great believer in respect for individuals, whether young or old. The following statements are my opinions in general, they are not aimed at you. I don't know you enough to say the following. I am only sharing my views on how the elders of our community behave and how they have made life difficult for youngsters.

My general respect for individuals becomes special in the case of individuals who, I believe, have made some kind of valiant effort at living life - it could vary from a constant sense of introspective learning to getting public recognition for honest achievement. I have, unfortunately, encountered far too many times, how the older members of our community walk about with a puffed up sense of ego, demanding respect without deserving it. Such behavior and attitude have bothered me greatly. Wisdom can reside in any individual irrespective of age. Many older members of our community don't recognize that. Age is only a number. It serves no purpose if all the years of living have not brought out a sense of wisdom and humility. If I had to give respect for age ONLY then I should be doing pranams to all the stones and trees of the earth for they have lived longer than any human being. I am trying to say that many aged members of our community demand respect; they don't command it. Such people are usually a hindrance to developing wisdom and godliness and, pardon me for saying, they are not very good examples to the younger generation. So forgive me if I am not enamored by elderly people.



What Silverfox meant: Members have freedom of speech - discussion on any topic is welcome; This does not mean members can use abusive language toward one another - he made this comment in specific reference to Kamakshi's posting. Have you read that?


Yes I read that !

Good, thank you. So why did you ask if the admin is trying to impose only its views? The admin here was trying to put into practice, a general rule of respectful conversation. If you did indeed understand the words and the context this question should not have come up.


What I meant: I wanted KRS to be clear about what question he was asking. If you haven't noticed already we have had a few intense debates on spiritual and social questions - I have not seen you be part of that debate. So I don't know how much you understand the issue at hand.


Most poor tamil Brahmins are illiterate like me and can not understand spiritual discussion of high order in a foreign language.

If you do not understand you are welcome to ask for clarifications. Please don't accuse the admin of trying to impose their views. That comment was unnecessary.

...contd
 
Last edited:
My Response to Gurumurthiji - II

...contd

Some more are in urban or in big cities standing on the cross road? Some privileged among us are settled in foreign countries not knowing where there life is. Our web site is the proof and please notice that out of 1000 or so members hardly a few hundreds take part in discussions. Balance 90% do only watch the threads and trying to understand who are we or what and where are we!! So if you prescribe that taking part in the debate only qualifies me for asking questions then I humbly say my pranams and keep quite.

If people are content to sit in the sidelines and watch then they have no business to come and legislate on issues developed by those who are actively participating. Here, in this forum, we privilege participation over non-participation. Our community in general, the current elderly generation in particular, has set a fine example of how to keep quiet and allow all kinds of people to say all sorts of things to us, Brahmins. The past generation or two has been quite selfish, thinking, 'why should I be bothered' and they have moved away or kept quiet. It could have been much more easy to cut the bad influences right at the beginning. Now the younger generation is finding it so hard to work up a sense of respect that can benefit the entire community. We feel the first step toward rectifying this problem is to encourage participation.

I understand that there are some great exceptions in the older members of our community such as those actively participating in this forum. In this current effort of community building some elders have come forward to help and their presence is such a huge relief and great welcome. Of course the younger members who are participating are our hope, they are our future. Bottomline, there is no excuse for being passive. To answer your question more directly, YES, the persons who actively participate in any debate have more privilege in shaping it than those merely watching. Why? Because participants invest time, effort, words and thoughts to help shape some concepts. It is not always pretty, it gets messy but the important thing is they are DOING something, as opposed to selfishly absorbing everything without giving anything in return.



No. We want members to write with good logic and reasoning. Otherwise things can quickly escalate to name-calling and bad-mouthing.


My humble view is that any thing written politely and with due respect to others should be acceptable. What one feels good logic and reasoning not necessarily be the same to some others. Disrespect is un brahminic and to be corrected.

I don't think my questions to KRS were illogical or impolite. If it is illogical, he is the one who should say it. In other words, if I said something to him and he understands and responds to it the matter ends there. This happens to be a case where we have shared a certain level of intensity in our debates. So I would rely on his understanding more. If you think my comments are illogical, then you are welcome to ask for clarifications.

You say that disrespect is unbrahminical, yet you were so quick to judge the admin as 'imposing our own views'. I find that contradictory.

Also, what is logical to one, is not necessarily logical to another. I think the answer is a YES and NO. Our legal system is based on laws and logic. It is not everybody's idea of logic but there exists a consensus about what constitutes a logical argument, right? Similarly there do exist a few things like rules of good writing, rules of persuasion and sound reasoning. We in India are not taught the value of 'arts' subjects because it won't get us a job. But it is these arts subjects that enable a person to communicate well. Those of us who have more familiarity with those subjects tend to do a better job of understanding things like logical arguments. Those of us who do not have expertise in the field can and perhaps should treat it as a learning opportunity.


That's how it has been happening. So I don't understand where this question is coming from.


No ! some time asking to split the point in to smaller points etc also lead to totally losing the original. E.g., you split this in to part II – So the original author is lost and you become the author in all such splits. Please do not give me technical reasons for this. This is wrong and to be corrected. Also summing up again of somebody’s point diverts the attention and delays the flow.

Asking somebody to split a point is not the same thing as setting the limit for the number of pages on the thread. So you are comparing two different things here.

I asked KRS a few questions from the point of view of clarity.

Setting page limit is done for a couple of purposes - (1) Long threads have a way of deviating into completely different topics that after a while the title of the thread does not indicate the content of the thread (2) All of us admins are volunteers. Sometimes we have to look at an entire thread from start to finish because our work has kept us busy and we have not been able to be present then and there. In such times looking at a thread of 80 pages is really tedious. So yes, some of our convenience is very much part of it.

You said that the threads are split so that we admins become the author. As you have probably noticed every thread is authored by all of the posters and administrators become contributors to a few. I assure you none of us have the time to sit and author all of the threads on our own.

If you mean that we admin are keen on establishing our ego in these threads, I assure there are far more profitable ways open to us. And in almost all cases our egos are satisfied by the jobs we hold by the things are able to do outside of this forum. We wouldn't be spending our precious time thinking for our community. This is strictly service. And I am learning how tough it can be!

Asking someone to sum up their points, to me, is a logical way of asking for clarity. I don't know how that can stop the flow of any debate. To me, it can only enhance it.


This is a very unfair comment Gurumurthiji. The admin has been doing its level best to not impose our views on anybody. Our roles as moderators has strictly been towards guiding any given discussion. We check to see if the arguments are sound - if there is proper backing especially for controversial claims. Some of us are better at debates than others but that doesn't mean anybody is trying to impose their views.

Very sorry Chintanaji… sorry I never meant to be un fair to you. By and large all of you are doing a good service and I only took the privilege of guiding whenever I felt deviation. Nothing more than that.

Suggestions are welcome. But please don't be so quick to judge! Thank you.

Certainly not the admin, if that's what you are asking!

Let us see whether any useful message emerge out of all the discussions and ultimately the community benefits !!!

I would like to see that too.

Please explain this statement.

Simple. Out of this discussion if we have to accept and rectify our mistakes we have to come forward to do that even if it is painful. Also we have to change the molding pattern of the community from the young age. The qualities that we have to inculcate from the younger age, have to be identified and accepted even it is painful.

I hope the things I have said in this posting are taken in the right spirit, although, in your language, it may be 'painful'.

gurumurthyji

Regards,
Chintana
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the interuption ...please proceed

Hello Mr.Hari Sir Let me copy from you something…….Please………….

(Thiruvilayadal – Dharumi Style)

Venum …venum ..enakku nalla venum …….Aasai aasai yarai vittudu …edo eludhanumnu thonitthu …..eludhi vitten……ippo… vaanghi kattikiren ….thaniya kidandhu pulambha vittuttangale….vara maatta …..yarum varamaatta ….Nambi nambi pulamai pochu… ippo kathi kathi prananum pooporadhu……aiyaiyo…… paattu eludhi parisu vaangubhavarhal sila pear…kuttram kandupidichey parisu vaauguvar sila pear…idhil nee endha rahamnu unakkey theyriyum … varuhirean …..mudindhal KRS sir idam sollungal …………..
Sir KRS sir ongha post nalla poikittu yerukku …. Naduvila nann konjam camady panni slow down pannivitten…….Kovichu ka dhingo…….Please proceed.

gurumurthyji
 
Dear Sri Gurumurthy Ji,

The only reason I did not get in the middle of your conversation with Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji was because, I was awaiting your response. In the meanwhile I am also thinking about how to tie some loose ends that Sowbhagyavathi has mentioned.

Please do not misunderstand - I certainly appreciate and thank you for your kind words backing me up. Because of folks like you, I get the courage and incentive to post further.

It is not you, who broke the flow of the postings - far from it. So, please, do not think that you did anything wrong. And also, how can I get angry? About what and whom? Anger does not exist where love resides. As you once mentioned, I have no personal agenda, nor do I benefit materially to post here.

My only thought is how do we unite as a community, whether we are blue, green or red, and how do we forge ahead with a common understanding. I am not very learned, nor am I very intelligent, but like you, I am trying to do the best I can, as long as folks like you encourage me to go forward.

With affection and namaskarams,
KRS
 
'The Guru' - Bhagavan Ramana

I wanted to share some thoughts that would be food for Tamil Brahmins. Not knowing where to post I decided to park this here. Sri KRS, hope this is OK with you.

" Keep advaita within the Heart. Do not ever carry it into action.Even if you apply it to all the three worlds, O son, it is not to be applied to the Guru."

Annamalai Swami has given an account of how this particular verse came to be written. It began with the following remarks by Bhagavan:

‘Advaita should not be practised in ordinary activities. It is sufficient if there is no differentiation in the mind. If one keeps cartloads of discriminating thoughts within, one should not pretend that all is one on the outside.
‘Westerners practise mixed marriages and eat equally with everyone. What is the use of doing only this? Only wars and battlefields have resulted. Out of all these activities, who has obtained any happiness?
‘This world is a huge theatre. Each person has to act whatever role is assigned to him. It is the nature of the universe to be differentiated but within each person there should be no differentiation.’
I [Annamalai Swami] was so moved by this speech that I asked Bhagavan to summarise these ideas in a written Tamil verse. Bhagavan agreed, took a Sanskrit verse from Tattvopadesa [by Adi-Sankaracharya, verse 87] which expresses a similar idea, and translated it into a Tamil venba. When he was satisfied with his translation, I also managed to persuade him to write the first fair copy in my diary. This verse was eventually published as verse thirty-nine of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham.
 
Dear Sri Amoorkan:
I didn't quite understand your posting on Advaita. That shows my utter ignorance on our vedas and philosophy. (Sorry! I went back and re-read your posting)
Do you live in Chennai? I would love to meet you when I return to Chennai by the end of Sept.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri Silverfox,

I am really kind of globe trotting, sometimes working, sometimes on yaathra and sometimes living with children to help them out. I guess the best place to meet me is right here in this forum!

Advaita literally means NOT TWO. This means that any thing other than you is an illusion. This happens to those who have realized the ultimate Truth. My posting highlights what Bhagavan Ramana and Aadhi Sankara have said viz. appreciating the logic of truth does not mean realization of the Truth itself. You cannot pretend everything is the same. Quite the contrary! Realizing that everything is different and YOU ARE UNIQUE is the first step. This is for the preaching to one's own self and to all. Realizing that everything is you is the last step which is not for preaching! Preaching means telling from the housetop saying to the whole world. On the contrary Upadesam is telling only one person - by a Guru to a sishya. Advaita is obtained as a Upadesam and the one who has realized lives as a freed man not practise like a freed man. Hope you understand the difference. However if you do not understand it, it is no matter. Our Dharma says not to generalize anything. Things appear to be same but only for a fickle of a moment. the fickle of a moment could be a flash or lasting a very long time. For example in terms of a yuga one's lifetime is a fickle! Generalization and particularization do exist in this phantom world and they are relatively real. The important point to understand is that we are in the first step to the mountain top and as I said realizing that everything is different and YOU ARE UNIQUE is the first step. All differences are due to their respective karma.

Regards,
 
Maurice Frydman, the compiler of I am That and Maharshi’s Gospel, questioned Bhagavan about the first half of this verse and received the following explanation:

Question: Sri Bhagavan has written [Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, verse 39] that one should not show advaita in one’s activities. Why so? All are one. Why differentiate?
Bhagavan: Would you like to sit on the seat that I am sitting on?
Question: I don’t mind sitting there. But if I came and sat there the sarvadhikari [the ashram manager] and the other people here would hit me and chase me away.
Bhagavan: Yes, nobody would allow you to sit here. If you saw someone molesting a woman, would you let him go, thinking, ‘All is one’? There is a scriptural story about this. Some people once gathered together to test whether it is true, as said in the Bhagavad Gita, that a jnani sees everything as one. They took a brahmin, an untouchable, a cow, an elephant, and a dog to the court of King Janaka, who was a jnani. When all had arrived King Janaka sent the brahmin to the place of brahmins, the cow to its shed, the elephant to the place allotted to elephants, the dog to its kennel and the untouchable person to the place where the other untouchables lived. He then ordered his servants to take care of his guests and feed them all appropriate food.
The people asked, ‘Why did you separate them individually? Is not everything one and the same for you?’
‘Yes, all are one,’ replied Janaka, ‘but self-satisfaction varies according to the nature of the individual. Will a man eat the straw eaten by the cow? Will the cow enjoy the food that a man eats? One should only give what satisfies each individual person or animal.’
Although the same man may play the role of all the characters in a play, his acts will be determined by the role that he is playing at each moment. In the role of a king he will sit on the throne and rule. If the same person takes on the role of a servant, he will carry the sandals of his master and follow him. His real Self is neither increased nor decreased while he plays these roles. The jnani never forgets that he himself has played all these roles in the past.
 
<<<<<<Amoorkan----When all had arrived King Janaka sent the brahmin to the place of brahmins, the cow to its shed, the elephant to the place allotted to elephants, the dog to its kennel and the untouchable person to the place where the other untouchables lived. He then ordered his servants to take care of his guests and feed them all appropriate food.>>>>>>>

When I read this, I said 'whoa!' ... mistreating untouchables...... Then I read it again..... this time without judging anything from my point of view.... I think I am understanding this to some extent!!
I am sorry to see you are very busy, globe-trotting! well, maybe one day!
 
Advaita vs. Dwita

Dear Sri Amoorkan:

I meant to ask you this: Is this the same philosophy of Advaita vs. Dwaita espoused by Adhi Sankara and Sri Ramanuja?
 
Dear Sri Silverfox,

Though our ancients led a Dharmic life in following the four Purusharthas called Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha, it happened that beginning with the demise of Lord Krishna some 4500 years ago the accent was on the first three purusharthas viz. Dharma, Artha and Kama. Moksha which is called Parama Purushartha was not so much practised. The difference between Moksha and other purushaarthas is that Moksha on the one hand demands renunciation (Mahaanaaraayanopanishad says "na karmana, na prajaya, na dhana - thyaagE naikE amruthathvamaanasuhu", which means not by work, nor by progeny nor by wealth can one attain deathlessness but only by renunciation.) while on the other hand, other purushaarthas are karma based objectives of life. Karma based objectives of life have their authority in the Karma Kaanda of our Vedas. It was to the credit of Adhi Shankara to have laid emphasis on the Gnana Kaanda portion of the Veda which ultimately translates to knowing who you are is the real knowledge. Anyone who dies without knowing himself is deemed to have wasted his precious life, a miserable man who is destined to be born again and again by the force of his karma.

Shankara's advaitham is that the real knowledge points out to "Brahma Sathyam, Jagan Mithya." I.e. Brahman alone is real and the world is false. The great Mahavaakya contained in Saama Vedha called "Tat Tvam Asi" (That Thou Art) says that Brahman is none other than you.

Ramanuja and later Madhwa had objection to the term "Jagan Mithya" and tried to repudiate it. But their explanations have fallen quite short in terms of their logic. However following them would still increase a man's knowledge of the ultimate ideal - a far cry from the karma based knowledge to which Abrahmic religions attribute.

Hope I made some sense to you.

Regards,
 
Dear Sri Amoorkan Ji,

No, I do not have any objections about your postings above. Any discussion that clarifies on the thread topic 'Who are we?' is welcome.

Thank you for the posting about the 39th verse of the Bhagawan as well as the story about King Janaka.

Let me make an assumption here about the essence of your postings. I am just surmizing, and if I am wrong, please forgive me.

The essence is that there are absolute differentiations in the abilities (for different purposes) of people (I am not including here animals, trees, rocks and such, but they also come under the composition rule of the three Gunas), and so a secularist's view that all men are born 'equal' is wrong.

If this is the essence, please read further, otherwise, kindly disregard the posting from this point.

Advaitha is a theory that is applied to an individual's spiritual progress. All such philosophies are rooted in our Srutis, as you well know. In my opinion, that is why we have whole different code called Varna Dharma to lay the rules of real life that has nothing to do with any of the philosophies.

By such ancient differentiations between mankind, which was suited to the life then, came the four Varnas. This classification served India (as well as lots of other similar cultures all over the world) for a long time. But over time this got degenerated in to the Jathi system as we know today. The failure of this system can be seen by both the domination of the Moghuls and the English, mainly by exploiting these divisions.

For today's world, where we are a democracy, the only way to rule is to follow the principle that every person has certain 'inalienable' rights in this world. And with those rights they are free to seek their happiness, whether the 'happiness' is to make money, or to be a priest or to be in the military or to enter in to politics, etc., etc.

To make this system work, you need to give opportunities to everyone, either to succeed or fail. If one wants to be an airline pilot but does not cut it, then it is that person's burden. This is why in the modern world, a parent plays a very important role of recognizing a child's talent and grooming it. Meritocracy is the only way. As long as a government gives this opportunity for everyone to succeed or fail and the process is transparent (like the IIT admissions), I do not thing that folks in a society will rebel against it.

Just my opinion.

Pranams,
KRS
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri KRS,

You have said: " The essence is that there are absolute differentiations in the abilities (for different purposes) of people (I am not including here animals, trees, rocks and such, but they also come under the composition rule of the three Gunas), and so a secularist's view that all men are born 'equal' is wrong.

If this is the essence, please read further, otherwise, kindly disregard the posting from this point."

Dear Sri KRS, you have given me a poor choice by your own summing up of what I have said. I precisely do not want to be drawn into discussion that you are proposing because that was not my object of posting. I merely reproduced Bhagavan Ramana's teachings on such philosophical categories such as 'general' and 'particular', 'same' and 'different'. Whatever you can make out of it and help yourself it is upto you.

Thanks,
 
Folks,

After going through all of my postings here and reflecting on the original intent of my postings, I must say that my job has just gotten larger.

When I posed the question, 'Who are we?' and attempted to explain it in the 'societal' terms, I did not understand the relationship between the 'Ashrama Dharma' and the 'Varna Dharma' that I was trying to address.

But as always, Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji, with her tireless logic and the maroon coloured editorial pen, has forced me to think over this relationship and address the issue.

I thank her for her unfailing insight.

So, please bear with me. I will fashion my topic to address both the Varna Dharma and the Ashrama Dharma to the best of my ability. My intent is not borne out of scholorship, but rather out of search from an ignorant point of view - in other words, these are the views of a limited human being and so, if more learned people have contrary views, I beseech them to post here - so all of us can learn.

I will post my summation so far, in my next posting within a couple of days and then we will proceed.

Pranams,
KRS
 
“Union is strength” For the proof of this proverb, please see the following video on how a young calf being caught by lions and crocodiles, other buffalos unity saved it which shot in North Africa

Very interesting video but why has this been posted on this thread? Do you want to start a new thread?

Chintana
 
Last edited:
Unity theme post may suit to all similar threads!

No! I do not wish to start any new thread. Thanks. Your following observations also came late and that is all. Unity subject is common to all similar threads I think and if you wish that is more suitable to any other thread, please move that.

‘ We as a community cannot take on the world by being nervous about its complexities. We need strategies and action plans.’

“We as a community have gotten too used to feeling like we are getting beaten and can do nothing about it. We are interested in promoting the sentiment that something can be done and it can be done by all of us.”

Sri KRS sir please look here. You promised the next installment about a fortnight ago. Since you did not post I posted a unity theme clipping. If you feel that is not suitable there, please ignore that Sir.

gurumurthyji.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top