A Few Glimpses from South Indian History

[suraju06]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

HH,

I have nothing further to converse with you Shri Raju. I consider the conversation between us closed for now. Thanks.

I leave it at that. Thank you. Cheers.

 

[pviyer]

soc

HH, with due respects, and to reiterate that its not a personal response to her or her motivations, but the recollection of an author she quoted -Sadasivan, probably the book Social history of India. I understand that she may not necessarily agree with every view of the author.
I had earlier read that book because it was forwarded by a friend. In any case, I am not a scholar or a historian and I dont make pretenses of being one. I thought I should let people here know( as it is relevant to the thread) some things mentioned by this author in this book. It is not exhaustive. But just to indicate the kind of inferences which this author makes on the subject at hand. I leave all of you to make your judgments as you all know certain obvious truths and falsehood. It is because of such authors that I am very careful when I read quotes-"so much of author's opinion on the way things were, get mixed with the body of the original sources used in the text, which should have been quoted in a proper way so that every one can make their own reading".However such authors precisely dont do that. But every individual has his own way to judge the worth of something
Here are some quotes
1. Page 275 "Mohamadden invaders were in agreement with Brahminic laws because they exercised comprehensive control over the people and made them docile and passive for their imperial ambitions"
2. Page 291 reference to brahmin - "He invited invasion and foreign rule as he prepared society for his expedient objectives, a victim of obscurantism,fatalism, fanatism and fadism. Every god of the brahmin is his alter ego and finished product of his imagination and is kept below him to defend his social position, more for his deification by any means"
3 "Hindu mind as prepared by a brahmin is gullible, servile, superstitious and a playground of all fatalistic fears in which no idea of liberation,no sense of liberty,no yearning for truth and justice can take root but it provides ample room for selfishness"
This is just an example of this author who lays down all evils of hindu society at the brahmin's feet.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

This is the basic problem with many of the books quoted here.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI PV Iyer.

This is just an example of this author who lays down all evils of hindu society at the brahmin's feet.

I am not surprised then that some of our friends here choose to go for the brahmin's head (pun intended). When godhead itself is not safe with these people, what can a boor brahminhead do?

 

[Nara]

Dear Saidevo, I find you are on a hair-trigger to take offense when nothing of the sort was given. I read and reread Shri Sangom's comment. He observed that for Shri pviyer, Kanchi acharya is as good as a "living god". This is an observation about the person's belief, which he himself has revealed. You are at liberty to see a hint of disapproval from Shri Sangom's observation, but that does not mean Shri Sangom is guilty of, as you put it, "innuendo against KAnchi ParamAchArya" or that the statement was in bad taste.

To draw attention to a possible logical conundrum of considering anyone "living god", not just Kachi Acharya particularly, is not anything against Kanchi Acharya himself, if anything, Kanchi Acharya himself may have liked to discourage such epithets like "living god". I know of sishyas of Sri Ahobila Matam saying Srimat Azhagiya Singar is Lord Nrisimha himself, or the 10th Nrisimha -- the other nine being the nava nrisihma of Ahobilam. When people say this the Acharya will pointedly correct them and tell them not to say such absurdities.

I myself don't like to compare anything that happens here with Nazis, Pol Pot, or Jihadists. But I can understand Shri Sangom's comment as I think he was feeling besieged by the zealous outpouring of righteousness even though he did not say anything offensive. The comparison to Jihadists Shri Sangom made is about the intolerance being shown to anything contrarian. The wholesale taking of offense even at an innocuous comment that was not derogatory about anyone, and nothing disrespectful to the Acharya himself, is akin to the way Jihadists think. Of course, to what action such thinking will lead a Jihadist to is completely the opposite. I have no doubt, and I am sure Shri Sangom also feels the same way, that all those people who took offense are peace-loving people who wouldn't harm a fly, may be a mosquito, but not a fly .

Brother Saidevo, let us not get into hair-trigger mode and take offense when nothing of the sort was intended. That is not good for free exchange of ideas.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri/Smt. pviyer, Greetings!

....The authors have to show research output volumes every year, and they need to put in as much of effort as they can in proving a point and in sociology it is to bend and reinterpret all the sources of information you have.

[...]

I dont need the support of such citations, because most of what I say is based on well known things. For example if HH really wanted to know about the tradition of niyogis, I can specifically ask my niyogi friends to find her a person in their community who knows their tradition.

Academic research has its limitations, no doubt about that. But I am unable to reject it wholesale and rely on what my friends say about their own tradition. For example, if I ask a typical Vadakalai Iyengar about the origins of Thenkalai Iyengar, he/she will say Ramanuja converted NBs into SV and made them Thenkalais. This is just preposterously absurd.

One can never be sure of the validity of opinions even if the friend is knowledgeable, because he/she may be motivated by long held sectarian beliefs. The Thenkalai Iyengars insist that there was no Vadakalai during Ramanuja's time and that branch is no more than 300 years old. The validity of these conflicting claims cannot be ascertained by the casual testimony of friends, but one has to look to academic research articles.

While there is publish or perish pressure on academics, that does not necessarily mean all publications are garbage. Academic journals go through careful peer review process to maintain their reputation for quality. If untenable conclusions get published, there is a whole lot of competing researchers, with constant pressure to publish or perish, ready to point it out and debunk such conclusions. In the long run, this process does produce a body of knowledge that is dependable. To reject such verified testimony and favor unverified personal testimony of friends is not wise.

Cheers!

If you are wendy do'nigger (emphasis mine) you will apply freudian theories, genetics and may be even space science

What is this? I don't understand!

 

[happyhindu]

Is it not better had you made your statement on atharva veda -That it is the argument of some scholars that atharva veda is not an original veda. To make more grand claims forces us to respond.I understand that you use the original vedic text rather than a sampradaya. But you should be aware that before claiming it is a well accepted fact, I perfectly understand requests for citations, and it would be good and friendly if you had better ways of putting this point across. I was thinking I was speaking to a friendly person before that post that you brought across. We all need convincing at different levels. To you, it may be more or less granted that there is a traditional controvery on atharva veda. To me it is not so obvious. So thats my entire point. The reason I addressed sangom is simple, I dont want to get into prolonged arguments over what is certain to be disagreed upon. My only point of all this, is if you needed specific reasons why I made a statement or whether I have a source of information that indicated my statement, you would have got the exact means I used to put forward that statement, in full truth. I have nothing to hide and I dont come from a family which spins tales and concocts things and we as a family are known for being honest and truthful.

PV Iyer,

Nobody has forced you to respond. My questions were not meant for someone who wants to talk based on current practices, personal observations, intuitions, or aura, etc.

My questions were meant for those who already have some background knowledge of vedic history. To make matters worse, you speak of things totally unrelated to the topics of atharvaveda and laukika-vaidika brahmins. You even bring in things like genetics when it is rather obvious you know little / nothing on that subject.

I would sincerely suggest that you keep away from topics on which you know little / nothing of. Please take this as a friendly suggestion only. Not something to get angry about. For example, I do not participate actively when Sangam literature is being discussed. I may post a few inputs based on whatever little I had come across, but am aware of my zero knowledge on that subject and therefore i do not go on to make an argument out of something i have no idea of.

Also, nobody asked about your family. You might as well have a good look at yourself at the way you made baseless accusations and the questions i have asked Shri KRS in this post: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-49.html#post73638 [Shri KRS ji, am still waiting for your response on that because it does pertain to moderation].

HH, with due respects, and to reiterate that its not a personal response to her or her motivations, but the recollection of an author she quoted -Sadasivan, probably the book Social history of India. I understand that she may not necessarily agree with every view of the author.
I had earlier read that book because it was forwarded by a friend. In any case, I am not a scholar or a historian and I dont make pretenses of being one. I thought I should let people here know( as it is relevant to the thread) some things mentioned by this author in this book. It is not exhaustive. But just to indicate the kind of inferences which this author makes on the subject at hand. I leave all of you to make your judgments as you all know certain obvious truths and falsehood. It is because of such authors that I am very careful when I read quotes-"so much of author's opinion on the way things were, get mixed with the body of the original sources used in the text, which should have been quoted in a proper way so that every one can make their own reading".However such authors precisely dont do that. But every individual has his own way to judge the worth of something
Here are some quotes
1. Page 275 "Mohamadden invaders were in agreement with Brahminic laws because they exercised comprehensive control over the people and made them docile and passive for their imperial ambitions"
2. Page 291 reference to brahmin - "He invited invasion and foreign rule as he prepared society for his expedient objectives, a victim of obscurantism,fatalism, fanatism and fadism. Every god of the brahmin is his alter ego and finished product of his imagination and is kept below him to defend his social position, more for his deification by any means"
3 "Hindu mind as prepared by a brahmin is gullible, servile, superstitious and a playground of all fatalistic fears in which no idea of liberation,no sense of liberty,no yearning for truth and justice can take root but it provides ample room for selfishness"
This is just an example of this author who lays down all evils of hindu society at the brahmin's feet.

My questions were based on
1) Atharva-Veda and
2) Difference (if any) between Laukika and Vaidika brahmins.
Nowhere on these 2 subjects have i used Sadasivan's book as a reference on this thread. I have already mentioned that i do not accept anything just because it is in print. Acceptability can only come with verifiability; based on footnotes, verses from vedic literature, inscriptions and such historically acceptable sources.

I do not know why you are after that particular book now. I feel you may be particualrly interested in discrediting Sadasivan's work because of his points on tamil brahmins of kerala. Instead of picking selective sentences, you might as well make a new thread and discuss Sadasivan's work throughly.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

I understand your supporting shrI Sangom in your post no.505, but you deliberately chose NOT TO GO INTO what he said in brackets.

• Had Sangom stopped with his statement, for him the Kanchi acharya is as good as a "living god", and refrained from his comment in brackets that follows this statement, I would not have raised any objection at all.

• Now, by his comment (I always found this to be ironical; the original god becomes dead, isn't it?!), he has qualified and subjected the epithet 'living god' applied to KAnchi ParamAchArya, to his comment in brackets, with further aggravation by the cynical/ironic question isn't it which ends with a question and an exclamation mark ?!.

• Thus, the innocuous remark before the brackets becomes a cynical remark with the obvious implication: "Calling Kanchi acharya a living god is absurd because that would make the original god dead!" (actually the very thinking that the original god is dead when that god comes in human form is what is absurd and contrary to Hindu concepts).

• This amounts to his questioning the two prime concepts of Hindu Dharma: avatAra and guru as god. This is despite KRS chiding him gently in another thread that for Hindus 'mAtA, pitA and guru are gods.'

If you want me to believe that shrI Sangom, who takes great care with his language and style and is an erudite scholar of Hindu Dharma as taught in its original Sanskrit texts, said what he said in brackets INADVERTENTLY, I am ready to believe it, but he has further expressed his contempt with the comparision of orthodox brahminism with the Jehad.

I never thought I would be called to explain at this length, and I am sorry for it, but your term 'hair-trigger' about me warranted it.

Please note that I have nothing against shrI Sangom except for the differences opinions about our religion, dharma and tradition. I have perhaps the greatest respect for him in this forum, specially after his supporting me when I offered to quit. I often think sadly that if I had the proficiency in Sanskrit and acquaintance with original Hindu texts that Sangom has, I could have had a better understanding of the spiritual truths of the Vedas and PurANas than my current intellectual guesswork, and countered the debate of materialism and subjectivism vs divinity in them, in much more effective ways.

Please understand that I am not a hair-trigger, since I usually--though it may not be the case always--try to craft my replies with care and understanding with due regard to possible implications.

 

[Nara]

(I always found this to be ironical; the original god becomes dead, isn't it?!),

Thanks Saidevo for the detailed reply, I still think you are reading way too much into the irony -- you also see some cynicism in this -- of the logical implication of considering someone as "living god".

Cheers!

 

[pviyer]

Dear Shri/Smt. pviyer, Greetings!



Academic research has its limitations, no doubt about that. But I am unable to reject it wholesale and rely on what my friends say about their own tradition. For example, if I ask a typical Vadakalai Iyengar about the origins of Thenkalai Iyengar, he/she will say Ramanuja converted NBs into SV and made them Thenkalais. This is just preposterously absurd.

One can never be sure of the validity of opinions even if the friend is knowledgeable, because he/she may be motivated by long held sectarian beliefs. The Thenkalai Iyengars insist that there was no Vadakalai during Ramanuja's time and that branch is no more than 300 years old. The validity of these conflicting claims cannot be ascertained by the casual testimony of friends, but one has to look to academic research articles.

While there is publish or perish pressure on academics, that does not necessarily mean all publications are garbage. Academic journals go through careful peer review process to maintain their reputation for quality. If untenable conclusions get published, there is a whole lot of competing researchers, with constant pressure to publish or perish, ready to point it out and debunk such conclusions. In the long run, this process does produce a body of knowledge that is dependable. To reject such verified testimony and favor unverified personal testimony of friends is not wise.

Cheers!

What is this? I don't understand!

Sir with due respects I agree in so far that academic research publications are usually a good encyclopedia if one cares to find out what is the author's inference and what is his source. It is then you need to apply your logic to inference and see if it is agreeable. In science publication closely allied with mathematics, it is easier sir because the mathematical equation has an input set and an output set which can be found out and also it is possible to see if the equation obeys a physical law or can be validated by experiment. Though here also theories change,it is far more comprehensive and they can be easily replaced if wrong or modified. In sociology, it is extremely difficult. The author quotes a number of sources- more like a who is who. First job is to separate source information from inference. Then there is no guarantee about the source information because it contains reference to some other document. Some of it is available, then fine , some of it is not, and many of it are located in unidentifiable libraries. Even if we get the source of source its subject matter may be based on what some one heard from somebody.But normal people have no time , sir to get so far. We therefore prefer direct sources wherever possible. The eminent Koenrad Elst pointed out how ( I think it is Romila thapar),has mentioned a citation in her publication. Her citation was deficient in that the original source was actually based on the report of a historian that he met so and so , who told him so and so and that this person he met claimed that he had a book to prove his claim but could not show the book because he lost it. This is then used regularly to claim that Kashi vishwanath temple was destroyed by auranagazeb because a hindu wife of his soldier or king, was raped by the temple priest. If someone wants me to give a citation for this I should look for it, but I found it in the internet in one of his articles which is available in internet. So if you want dont take my word for it, but understand the process that is happening in sociological research. I think anybody can refer to Koenrad elst's writings on this subject which describes in detail what is happening in our country. Some members may already know, to those who dont, i sincerely request them to read his articles , which are a waking call for all of us. So when somebody gives a big link and claim that is not part of tradition, I have been reading tradition based books for a long time, not so long as some here,but enough to know that certain things are not part of the tradition or legends.It is then , when someone makes a certain claim, you feel it should be questioned. It is likely that at least part of what is said in the book is true, but you cant expect us all to buy it wholesale, on the face of it. You probably didnt get this name as I mis-spelt her. wendy doniger that is her name. She is popular in the west as one of the greatest academician on hinduism,winning many awards for her excellant dissection on hinduism, but she is extremely unpopular among hindus in america, and others who read her. I am not sure if you could be impressed by her on reading her books, so I leave that to your view. But what is serious is that another western scholar in harvard Michael Witzel raised serious concerns about her book translating vedas. If this is the standard of sociology research, orthodox members will be extremely sceptical. Those who are a bit moderate would need to apply caution because somebody is rebuilding concept of your tradition based on very incorrect reasons. Science itself changes and we, who support tradition also keep adjusting our mindset based on unverified scientific theories, not yet proven but widely in circulation. This is as far as we can go. But sociology is a different matter, and experience has taught us to be very sceptical, not healthy but natural based on experience. But that is in a way good, we need sceptics for these sociology theories. Not everybody should buy them (accept) and get it overrated.

Regards
PV

 

[happyhindu]

Thanks Saidevo for the detailed reply, I still think you are reading way too much into the irony -- you also see some cynicism in this -- of the logical implication of considering someone as "living god".

Cheers!

Shri Saidevo and Sangom Sir,

One person who looked upon his dad as God himself, may consider his deceased father still alive in his heart. Another person may find it ironical to consider a deceased person a 'living god'. Both are right in their view points. I do not see what is the need to show intolerance towards one's expressed irony. Previously if someone said something negative about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Sri Satya Sai, or even Swami Nityananda i used to feel upset. But not anymore. Everyone has their view point and i lose nothing by hearing it out. No human is perfect. Everyone is entitled to their view point.

Just my 1 cent. Can be ignored if found to have no conciliatory value.

Regards.

 

[pviyer]

PV Iyer,

Nobody has forced you to respond. My questions were not meant for someone who wants to talk based on current practices, personal observations, intuitions, or aura, etc.

My questions were meant for those who already have some background knowledge of vedic history. To make matters worse, you speak of things totally unrelated to the topics of atharvaveda and laukika-vaidika brahmins. You even bring in things like genetics when it is rather obvious you know little / nothing on that subject.

I would sincerely suggest that you keep away from topics on which you know little / nothing of. Please take this as a friendly suggestion only. Not something to get angry about. For example, I do not participate actively when Sangam literature is being discussed. I may post a few inputs based on whatever little I had come across, but am aware of my zero knowledge on that subject and therefore i do not go on to make an argument out of something i have no idea of.

Also, nobody asked about your family. You might as well have a good look at yourself at the way you made baseless accusations and the questions i have asked Shri KRS in this post: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-49.html#post73638 [Shri KRS ji, am still waiting for your response on that because it does pertain to moderation].


My questions were based on
1) Atharva-Veda and
2) Difference (if any) between Laukika and Vaidika brahmins.
Nowhere on these 2 subjects have i used Sadasivan's book as a reference on this thread. I have already mentioned that i do not accept anything just because it is in print. Acceptability can only come with verifiability; based on footnotes, verses from vedic literature, inscriptions and such historically acceptable sources.

I do not know why you are after that particular book now. I feel you may be particualrly interested in discrediting Sadasivan's work because of his points on tamil brahmins of kerala. Instead of picking selective sentences, you might as well make a new thread and discuss Sadasivan's work throughly.

HH, I did not pick on that book suddenly, it was mentioned by you in a link, and I remembered this author and I made it clear at that post itself, that it had no purpose to corner you, but to highlight the aspect of sociological research and that people tend to rely on works not so scholarly but you made statements that "I dont rely on non scholarly sources".

In the quote, I am not sure whether you refer to negative aura. But it is again meant that I thought I was talking to a friendly person , until your immediate reply outburst. If you think that needs to be moderated, this is all the defense and truth about myself.I apologize for using a strong verbal usage which can give multiple meanings, that I did not intend. I have not said anything else inappropriate to the best of knowledge and I mean nothing bad to you , if you still want to feel hurt. This is all I can say.

 

[Nara]

Dear sir/madam,

One request -- please separate your posting into small enough paragraphs. I was almost tempted to just skip your response as I found it tedious to read such a long single-paragraph response with several points all running together.

... But sociology is a different matter, and experience has taught us to be very sceptical,

Absolutely, we all need to be skeptical always. I feel the level of skepticism we need in the case of personal testimony is several magnitudes higher than the healthy level of skepticism we need to have reading academic research.

To put it another way, I don't have the time or inclination to go deep and check out every last foot-note in a journal article or dig deep into personal accounts of a friend I know. In either of these two cases I have to make a judgment about what and how much to believe. I will take academic research with lot less skepticism and keep an open mind for contrary research. I will take the personal account of a friend with lot more skepticism and with a generous load of salt.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

PVIYER: If you are wendy do'nigger (emphasis mine) you will apply freudian theories, genetics and may be even space science

What is this? I don't understand!

Nara Sir, that is name-calling (either to me or to Wendy or to both). But to PV Iyer i suppose such name-calling is not abusive.

Anyways this is for some info on Wendy Doniger just in case you have not come across her works being discussed on the net. Apparently Wendy Doniger says things that do not go well with hindu nationalists. Not everything she says is completely misplaced though. Instead of bringing out material to refute her stand, our nationalists typically bring out less of that and indulge a lot more in attacking her, as a person. Or atleast that is what i come across on the net / blogs.

The prob is an indian (whatever may be her / his caste) may look like a nigger in front of a white woman like Wendy but that does not stop our hindu nationalists from calling Wendy a nigger -- a case of name-calling gone awry. With such attitudes around, am now slowly beginning to realise why castesim is called racism by some..

 

[happyhindu]

HH, I did not pick on that book suddenly, it was mentioned by you in a link, and I remembered this author and I made it clear at that post itself, that it had no purpose to corner you, but to highlight the aspect of sociological research and that people tend to rely on works not so scholarly but you made statements that "I dont rely on non scholarly sources".

Smt / Sri PV iyer.

I have never said that everything written by Sadasivan is accurate. Certainly there are some points in his work that come across as his mere POVs. However, he has used footnotes in his book and there are points that are verifiable. If you want to discuss Sadasivan's book, you can most certainly do it on a new thread.

In the quote, I am not sure whether you refer to negative aura. But it is again meant that I thought I was talking to a friendly person , until your immediate reply outburst. If you think that needs to be moderated, this is all the defense and truth about myself.I apologize for using a strong verbal usage which can give multiple meanings, that I did not intend. I have not said anything else inappropriate to the best of knowledge and I mean nothing bad to you , if you still want to feel hurt. This is all I can say.

Well PViyer, now you claim that i indulged in a "immediate reply outburst". I not understand what you intended or did not. I have nothing more to say to you on this topic. I look forward to Shri KRS ji's reply on this post because the accusations you have made do pertain to moderation: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-49.html#post73638

 

[pviyer]

Nobody has forced you to respond. My questions were not meant for someone who wants to talk based on current practices, personal observations, intuitions, or aura, etc.

Dear HH, I respond only when I feel that there is something I have to put in justification of tradition, the way I conceive it. Look through my posts and this is the only reason , I joined this forum, for tradition and tradition alone. I have no academic points to score by participating here, I have not come here to prove to others that I am right. You have made a statement that runs against what I know of tradition, I think back and look, is there anything in tradition that supports such an idea(tradition is nothing but living history or dead history but was a tradition). I have not come here to speculate either , because I have done lot of that, come a full circle and reside and practice little things, learning vedam from a vadhiyar, know how to do some pujas, find out ways I can make my next generation live up to the vaidika dharma, when there is weakening of vaidikam everywhere. You miss an important point HH. There are some in this forum who know a lot about current vedic practices and anubhavam- I am not referring to myself. Knowledge of this will give you far more insight than reading about vedas in books, because these are living revelations compared to some interpreted and interpolated books.

 

[Nara]

pviyer,

First, I have not read this book and I know nothing about the political views of the author of the book. From your comment, it seems you are asserting that this book cannot be relied upon based on the citations you have provided.

Come now pviyer, were you not the one who did not like HH making her case with citations, or, are you averse only to citations others make?

Anyway ....

.....
1. Page 275 "Mohamadden invaders were in agreement with Brahminic laws ....
2. Page 291 "He invited invasion and foreign rule as he prepared society for his expedient objectives....
3 "Hindu mind as prepared by a brahmin is gullible, servile, superstitious and a playground of all fatalistic fears in which no idea of liberation,no sense of liberty,no yearning for truth and justice can take root but it provides ample room for selfishness"

I have no idea whether #1 and #2 are true, but let me give you my personal testimony, which you seem to prefer to academic research, #3 is spot on.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....Anyways this is for some info on Wendy Doniger just in case you have not come across her works being discussed on the net.

Thanks Happy, I Googled her, she seems very interesting. I will read up on her.

Apparently Wendy Doniger says things that do not go well with hindu nationalists.

Ha, now it makes sense why she was drawn into the discussion. Attacking the person and not ideas is an age old trick. Arundati Roy is another favorite target for the hindu nationalists, sigh!

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Shri Saidevo and Sangom Sir,

One person who looked upon his dad as God himself, may consider his deceased father still alive in his heart. Another person may find it ironical to consider a deceased person a 'living god'. Both are right in their view points. I do not see what is the need to show intolerance towards one's expressed irony. Previously if someone said something negative about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Sri Satya Sai, or even Swami Nityananda i used to feel upset. But not anymore. Everyone has their view point and i lose nothing by hearing it out. No human is perfect. Everyone is entitled to their view point.

Just my 1 cent. Can be ignored if found to have no conciliatory value.

Regards.

Smt. HH,

I have already made it clear that the honorifics like "paramacharya", "Jagadguru" etc., appear to me appropriate while the "natamadum deivam" (as also "living god") adjectives appear funny to me. It is as if the other god/s do not move about among the people though it is agreed generally that mortal eyes cannot see them. In my view the nearest that will fit the mortal acharya would be "kANappeTTa deivam" or "god who is visible" if at all the followers desire to deify this acarya. Of course I am not so devoted to him or any acarya or guru.

My concept of God is such that a man cannot be god except in the general advaitic sense tattvam asi. And I think Hinduism does allow different concepts about the truth or for that matter God - which may or may not be the absolute truth again, depending upon the different povs - to be entertained by any one. If it is the rule in this forum that Kanchi acharya's honorific is so brittle as not to brook any such peripheral comment which I made, then it is OK. I can live without this forum and so also such a forum will also do better without me.

If as Saidevo says "the Hindu in a person (is) dead, when the person has no faith in the divinity and inerrancy of the Vedas or sees only what the person wants to see in practically every scriptural, religious, ritual and traditional aspect of the Hindu Dharma and constantly finds fault with any other view."; may be the "hindu" as per Saidevo's definition will be dead in me but there will still be a human being within that body which could be a Dalit or pancaman (outside the Chaturvarnyam, beyond which the vedic hinduism could not go) or a non-Hindu, like Buddhist, Jain, Zoroastrian, Christian or Muslim or even an atheist and I am satisfied with that status. May be the Hindus as per Saidevo's definition will have special swargams (and narakams too) reserved for them!!

P.S.

If this post also goes against the fragile sensibilities of the orthodoxy like Saidevo, Suraju, Sravna, P.V. Iyer, etc., so be it.

 

[pviyer]

pviyer,


Come now pviyer, were you not the one who did not like HH making her case with citations, or, are you averse only to citations others make?!

I am still not averse to any citations from anyone, but there is an alternate view, and that alternate view to any view, should be expressed if people think it is right, not definately to make a show and there is a reason why we should accept something new.

 

[pviyer]

Smt. HH,
If it is the rule in this forum that Kanchi acharya's honorific is so brittle as not to brook any such peripheral comment which I made, then it is OK. I can live without this forum and so also such a forum will also do better without me.

Sir this is exactly what a supposed traditionalist like me feels. I almost want to say goodbye to the forum. I am really not here to make war with people. There is no point discussing who is right or who is wrong as we all have that "left egoes" that separate us from paramatma. I know now exactly what it means to be Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, the fighter and the never give up attitude that shows up. But I am a mere mortal and I am going to give this forum a long miss before coming back. It would have been good if people knew how to communicate with each other peacefully. It may be my fault alone that my communication can make someone feel bad. Best of luck and no harm intended.

Thanks,
PV

 

[sravna]

Smt. HH,

I have already made it clear that the honorifics like "paramacharya", "Jagadguru" etc., appear to me appropriate while the "natamadum deivam" (as also "living god") adjectives appear funny to me. It is as if the other god/s do not move about among the people though it is agreed generally that mortal eyes cannot see them. In my view the nearest that will fit the mortal acharya would be "kANappeTTa deivam" or "god who is visible" if at all the followers desire to deify this acarya. Of course I am not so devoted to him or any acarya or guru.

My concept of God is such that a man cannot be god except in the general advaitic sense tattvam asi. And I think Hinduism does allow different concepts about the truth or for that matter God - which may or may not be the absolute truth again, depending upon the different povs - to be entertained by any one. If it is the rule in this forum that Kanchi acharya's honorific is so brittle as not to brook any such peripheral comment which I made, then it is OK. I can live without this forum and so also such a forum will also do better without me.

If as Saidevo says "the Hindu in a person (is) dead, when the person has no faith in the divinity and inerrancy of the Vedas or sees only what the person wants to see in practically every scriptural, religious, ritual and traditional aspect of the Hindu Dharma and constantly finds fault with any other view."; may be the "hindu" as per Saidevo's definition will be dead in me but there will still be a human being within that body which could be a Dalit or pancaman (outside the Chaturvarnyam, beyond which the vedic hinduism could not go) or a non-Hindu, like Buddhist, Jain, Zoroastrian, Christian or Muslim or even an atheist and I am satisfied with that status. May be the Hindus as per Saidevo's definition will have special swargams (and narakams too) reserved for them!!

P.S.

If this post also goes against the fragile sensibilities of the orthodoxy like Saidevo, Suraju, Sravna, P.V. Iyer, etc., so be it.

Dear Shri Sangom,

As Shri Saidevo points out, I think there is the highest regard in everyone in this forum for your vast knowledge and your own insights you provide on such knowledge. It is ok if your pov is different from mine or Shri Saidevo's and others. I do not think they will be hurt by that. For the orthodox people, however, to whom a guru holds a special place just like a father or mother, you would agree, saying ill of such person will be taken as a personal insult.

There is no room for rationality when it gets personal.

That is the reason I suggested, we try to restrain from making some points which we think may be offensive to a normal person given his known set of beliefs and values. If these are meticulously seen to be not trampled upon, the discussions I think will not go out of control as frequently as it is happening now.

 

[pviyer]

sh.Iyer,

you being new to this forum, and myself 6 months old here, what I understood is, smt.happyhindu is truly an ardent hindu, well wisher of hinduism, though she is bend upon to fight against brahminism, whoom she feels is a hurdle to hinduisms growth in the modern era. i do appreciate her stand, though she is a non-brahmin, but well appreciated by most of the forum members.

please give due respect to smt.happyhindu, though she is not a TamizhBrahmin. her profound knowledge is to be appreciated by all

Dear sir,
We all appreciate knowledge sir, and the right to disagree. But I am not really for all this one-one ego clashes, it is a drain. You say something, it provokes somebody , then they say something provocative, is there an end. It is childish I dont know how to get out of it.What is this sir, as it is I get to do sandhya once a day and I have to get some papam by hurting somebody knowingly or unknowingly. The fault may be with me alone, I dont know, but tradition is a thing that is gone deep into me because it like a practical for me not just a theory as far as my anubhavam. I may have responded things in a strong way because I dont like what I think is wrong characterization of my tradition. It is in my own interest that I stay away from this community for a while. I am returning back to India, thats where I mainly work, tomorrow and that should refresh me.

 

[ShivKC]

Dear sir,
I dont know, but tradition is a thing that is gone deep into me because it like a practical for me not just a theory as far as my anubhavam. .

this is exactly what most of Edtd - KRS brahmin reformists and rationalists failed to understand..I pity those reformers

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Who is TamilBrahmins.com For :
Tamilbrahmins.com is a website/forum that provides a stage for Tamil Brahmins spread across the world to network and interact with one another on issues related to the development and well-being of the community.

Tamil Brahmins - Guidelines

I think many of the posts here are against these Guidelines. These are definitely not related to the development and well-being of the community.