A Few Glimpses from South Indian History

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Shri P.V. Iyer makes a very fine point. Mastering the ego in my opinion is a big challenge to the mind. The majority of the people are egoist and let only their ego react to any attack on them real or perceived. People who are mentally highly gifted but not spiritual, I would say have the biggest ego.

I would like to urge the spiritually inclined people who generally take personal attacks in the right spirit and are more conciliatory in their approach to hold on to that spirit and let only exchanges happen between the minds and not the egos.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

I have always thought and said that the gap between thoughts and the words that express those thoughts is wide--and tricky.

01. I am sure that Sangom very well knows inside his heart that I never meant the gloomy picture that he tries to paint about him in post no.519, which he says is the result of what he quoted in blue from my post no.479.

I wish to bring it to the notice of members and the Admins that he has conveniently omitted the important clause I prefixed to what he has quoted, which is this: with that same logic you should also find. I leave it to the decision of the members that if the quoted text of mine really gives the meaning that he makes out, with this clause prefixed to it.

02. It should be clear from the full text in my my post no.479, that I only wanted to emphasize to Sangom what his logic about 'a living god' with the comment he has juxtaposed to it can mean and how it can be extended. It was actually painful for me to point out what he and his rationalist friends are doing by way of attacking Hinduism in the name of reforming brahmins, taking advantage of their scholarship and relying only on current and recent academic opinions, when many of us here do not possess that scholarship or skill.

03. It is one thing to take the strongest exception to Dharma ShAstras like Manu SmRti, but quite another to seek to reform brahmins by casting aspersions on the Vedas, RiShis, PurANas, the guru paramparA and the rituals like shrAddha held in esteem by brahmins.

While the former is welcome to a logical extent, the latter tendency MUST BE OPPOSED, because it seeks to destroy the very fabric of our religion and culture.

04. I fail to understand why his friends cannot admit that Sangom has indeed given a wrong and hurting implication (I felt it hurting because I am perhaps the most prolific poster about KAnchi ParamAchArya here) by the way he has juxtaposed his personal sentiments, even if he says later that he did not mean it that way. From my side I have already explained how I was forced to do what I have done in post no.479 and how I was forced to explain it in post no.508 by Nara's remark of my being a hair-trigger.

Although Sangom, HH and Nara may persist in being right and harmless and innocuous in Sangom's original remark and comment and the others' support about it, I really feel sorry at the turn of events. I want the discussions to go on smoothly, subject to the provision in the point no.03 above.

As a compromise, I have no objection for the moderator to REMOVE (not just edit) Sangom's remarks and comment as well as my reply to it in post no.479, and all subsequent references of them, plus Sangom's comparison of orthodox brahmins to the Jihadists in post no.490 with all subsequent references thereto.

Let us move on, taking due care not to hurt each others' feelings and sentiments, since we on both sides have already shown adequately what we are capable of. Let us try to shine by the strength of our character, good will and mutual understanding, rather than by the show of our ego, scholarship and skills of debate.

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Shri.Sravana,
I read all your postings.Some I find is beyond my limited capacity to comprehend.Still,I admire your capacity to keep cool.
Now, I am reading a book by an author"GARY ZUKAV".The name of the book is 'THE SEAT OF THE SOUL'.This book is stated to be THE NO.I
New YORK TIMES BEST SELLER,The New, Innovative, and Thought-Provoking Work by the AUTHOR of 'The Dancing Wu LI Masters'
When I go through the contents of the Book(I think this is similar to Our VEDANTIC PHILOSOPHY),I always remember you.
I strongly recommend you to go through this book and spread the knowledge contained in this Book for the benefit of Forum Members.
I had listened to series of lectures on 'Brahma Sutra' in AASTHA TV channel.I could not understand anything after listening to the lectures in
English,though each day I thought I am grasping something.I really sympathise with the SWAMIJI who gave these lectures in his ashram in USA
mostly to his western disciples and recorded versions broadcast through TV channel,as this Swamiji has been convicted by a USA court for
14 years jail sentence and is running in disguise at the age of 82 years within USA to avoid jail sentence and the bond money of 11 million dollars is being confiscated.At one time he was being considered to occupy the seat of 'Sankara Mutt' in some place in North India.
SEE the fall of a very knowledgeable person at the fag end of his life.I have learnt some lesson from this incident.

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Shri.PV.Iyer,
I am a member of this forum from January,2010 and I find that it is a wonderful forum.Whenever I go through this forum,I always recollect the days when JANATHA PARTY was formed in 1977 or so(Ido not recollect the correct year of formation)when late
Shri.Morarji Desai was the Prime Minister of INDIA and Late Shri.Chandrasekhar was the President of the Party.All party
members enjoyed full freedom and expressed their views freely as members do in this forum.You cannot expect this type of
freedom anywhere.So I request you not to take a hasty decision to leave this forum.

 

[KRS]

Golly, folks.
I go away for a couple of hours and all breaks loose. Five pages at that.

1. I have already said, without using the dreaded red ink, that I did not see Sri Sangom's post about God and Maha Periaval as offensive. Yet, there are scores of posts again challenging that. In the future, if you have an issue like that, send me a PM. As I have said, the Moderator's decision on content are final.

2, I am harsh on members here on two accounts:
A. When they do not listen to the Moderator's repeated words and
B. When they use abusive words against a fellow member

Every other moderation, I try to be gentle. This is just to answer Sri Saidevo's repeated words here that I was 'gentle' in moderating Sri Sangom Ji.

Any ideas are welcome here, as long as they do not violate the Forum rules. I do not think that anything that anyone said here (I went through the posts very fast) is offensive, except for a couple of sentences, which I have moderated.
KRS

 

[Nara]

.... The majority of the people are egoist and let only their ego react to any attack on them real or perceived. People who are mentally highly gifted but not spiritual, I would say have the biggest ego.

Dear sravna, your comment is too enigmatic to to me, are you saying those who viewed Shri Sangom's comment as an attack are doing so only because of their ego?

I am certainly not spiritual, but since the second comment is about " mentally highly gifted", I suppose I am not a target of your observation. However, I find it strange that those who consider themselves spiritual are not only very sure of their own humility, but the arrogance of those of us who are not as well!!! I bet you take a lot of pride in your humility

....Let us move on, taking due care not to hurt each others' feelings and sentiments, since we on both sides have already shown adequately what we are capable of. Let us try to shine by the strength of our character, good will and mutual understanding, rather than by our ego, scholarship and skills of debate.

Dear Saidevo, I don't wish to comment on the controversy any more than what I have already done. I wish to express a few thoughts with regard to the above only.

You don't want feelings hurt, that is a good thing, but how do you avoid it. For example, what if I say that the impression you leave with the above statement is hurtful to me?

You make a curious distinction between "good will and mutual understanding" on the one hand -- meaning the traditionalists I suppose -- and on the other hand, "ego, scholarship and skills of debate" -- ego applies to me, but by the other two I suppose you mean Sangom sir and HH.

I feel your view is heavily weighted against those who wish to present cogent arguments based on solid evidence, as if that by itself can be taken as hurtful.

Why can't contrary views be expressed as long as it is done in a civil and logical way? Scholarship and skills of debate do not automatically amount to ego. Is it not better to discuss those views than to say go away with your rationalist views?

People, what is the matter? What you think of development and well-being of the community need not be the view of all other members too. I can have a different view of what is good for the "community", no? Only your view is valid, not mine?

I am getting tired of all this meta discussions. Drive us out by calling us egotistical, hurting others for no more a sin than presenting cogent arguments, etc., you will end up with one big mutual admiration society.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri.Sravana,
I read all your postings.Some I find is beyond my limited capacity to comprehend.Still,I admire your capacity to keep cool.
Now, I am reading a book by an author"GARY ZUKAV".The name of the book is 'THE SEAT OF THE SOUL'.This book is stated to be THE NO.I
New YORK TIMES BEST SELLER,The New, Innovative, and Thought-Provoking Work by the AUTHOR of 'The Dancing Wu LI Masters'
When I go through the contents of the Book(I think this is similar to Our VEDANTIC PHILOSOPHY),I always remember you.
I strongly recommend you to go through this book and spread the knowledge contained in this Book for the benefit of Forum Members.
I had listened to series of lectures on 'Brahma Sutra' in AASTHA TV channel.I could not understand anything after listening to the lectures in
English,though each day I thought I am grasping something.I really sympathise with the SWAMIJI who gave these lectures in his ashram in USA
mostly to his western disciples and recorded versions broadcast through TV channel,as this Swamiji has been convicted by a USA court for
14 years jail sentence and is running in disguise at the age of 82 years within USA to avoid jail sentence and the bond money of 11 million dollars is being confiscated.At one time he was being considered to occupy the seat of 'Sankara Mutt' in some place in North India.
SEE the fall of a very knowledgeable person at the fag end of his life.I have leant some lesson from this incident.

Dear Shri Krishnamurthy,

The fact that people like you are not able to comprehend some of my posts only implies that they lack in clarity. Inspite of my various posts in support of orthodoxy, I must confess that m knowledge of the vedas etc. is very negligible compared to those of many other members in this forum. Therefore the task of disseminating the knowledge in the book you mentioned is better entrusted to such people, though I am very flattered by the trust you have in my ability to do the task

Regarding the Swamiji, I would just like to say in a very general way with out any reference to this specific incident or anything else, that true greatness can never be diminished in any way. It is only the people attempting to diminish that greatness who get diminished.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

What I meant was, it is the rationalists who have a big ego and zealously cling on to their point of view mainly because of that ego. This is not intended as an attack and I am sure you would also not consider this as such as I think rationalists don't consider having a big ego a problem. It is my view that the orthodoxy is more accomadative though by definition they are not supposed to be. This is because, though the philosophy that they espouse is of antiquity, it is possible to practice it successfully in any era

 

[Nara]

... I think rationalists don't consider having a big ego a problem.

No sravna, I disagree. It is quite the opposite. First, to paint all rationalist as having a big ego is absurd, to say the least. Further, to be a rationalist, one has to be completely free of ego. They must be ready to accept whatever is rational, and must be ready to reject whatever is shown to be absurd, even if it is a hoary tradition. I do take it as an unnecessary personal attack if you say I have a big ego simply because I am seen as a rationalist.

IMO, it takes a lot of ego to insist -- as you say, zealously -- on some unseen power of intuition that is superior to the well established sources of knowledge, namely, observation, reason, and verifiable/valid testimony. It takes a lot of ego to insist that one's own traditional/religious doctrine is the ultimate truth. Contrary to what you say, orthodoxy by definition is inflexible, unwilling to change or to accommodate.

I wish you long healthy and prosperous life, and when a need arises in your life and let it be on rarest of rare occasion, you will have to, and you will, turn to the product of rational thought, all of the orthodoxy have turned to it and you will be no exception.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

No sravna, I disagree. It is quite the opposite. First, to paint all rationalist as having a big ego is absurd, to say the least. Further, to be a rationalist, one has to be completely free of ego. They must be ready to accept whatever is rational, and must be ready to reject whatever is shown to be absurd, even if it is a hoary tradition. I do take it as an unnecessary personal attack if you say I have a big ego simply because I am seen as a rationalist.

IMO, it takes a lot of ego to insist -- as you say, zealously -- on some unseen power of intuition that is superior to the well established sources of knowledge, namely, observation, reason, and verifiable/valid testimony. It takes a lot of ego to insist that one's own traditional/religious doctrine is the ultimate truth. Contrary to what you say, orthodoxy by definition is inflexible, unwilling to change or to accommodate.

I wish you long healthy and prosperous life, and when a need arises in your life and let it be on rarest of rare occasion, you will have to, and you will, turn to the product of rational thought, all of the orthodoxy have turned to it and you will be no exception.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Conquering of ego is what the crux of hinduism is about. If a rationalist strives for that, the orthodoxy would have no issue over that.

 

[siganeswarie]

thank u

 

[KRS]

I just saw this. I read the posts.

Sri PV Iyer Ji, and ONLY Sri PV Iyer Ji,

What are your answers to Srimathi HH Ji's comments below?

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS Ji,

I find this to be veering towards baseless accusations. You have been witness to my posts on this thread. Please tell me:

1) Where have i made personal remarks about PV Iyer? Also, I do not understand what "aura" he is talking about.

2) Where have i indulged in characterizations?

3) Where have i said that discussion must be ONLY citation based? I have already said this:
The point in discussion must be verifiable, that's all. It can come as a logical hypothesis inferred from existing data with no archeological evidence to support it. It will be acceptable as long as the premises of the argument is sound and supported with inferred evidence from linguistic or any other form of research. Not mere claims please.

As long as a person provides a relevant verse from the vedas or any other literature that is fine enough. He does not have to provide book citations.

3) I had hoped that here we cud discuss into the tradition of the trayi-veda and understand reasons why atharva was not accepted as a veda by the trayi-veda group. This is not something that pertains to the colonial times. It is not me who is claiming that atharva-veda was not originally accepted as a veda.

How can PV claim that "So her claim that it is proven that atharva veda is not an original veda is not only misleading but it is insulting to all our legendary vedic scholars" ?

Regards.

 

[pviyer]

Sir I am sending you a private message sometime later. I am not liking this fighting and discussing things and making fun of people. I used strong words which HH has taken offence to.
But to reiterate my stand, whatever words someone may find offensive, I only object to her arguments, and not to her personally.
If she thinks otherwise, what can I do here.
I am not the kind to go on a street fight putting my views and what I think of her subsequent response in open. Neither I want to prove my assertions 100% right. That can come later. If you want me to justify and I can do it in private if that is okay. You may choose to or not choose to publicize it. That can be your stand and I wont object.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

Alright, you try to read between words, so let me clarify with reference to your post no.531:

• I have NOT made any personal references with the terms ego, scholarship and skills of debate, because I have NOT JUXTAPOSED any names to them. Only you have, with your suppositions, so it is your statement--not mine--that makes personal references.

• By ego, believe it or not, I meant primarily my ego, as if it has won an argument for me.

• By scholarship, I meant the type of scholarship that finds only the negative and highlights them at the cost of the majority of positive content with reference to our Hindu scriptures, and the reverse with reference to academic opinions.

• By skills of debate, I meant how, with very little scholarship, I had managed to point out whatever I wanted to, in almost straightforward words, without inviting admin censure.

The way I have been forced to show all the three in me--and now own it--in my posts from no.479 on to this post, really does not make me happy, because these posts of mine contribute very little to the knowledge content of the forum.

As for your question, "Why can't contrary views be expressed as long as it is done in a civil and logical way?", my answer is:

Yes, contrary views can and must be expressed in the way you have mentioned. But the point is that whenever something negative in our scriptures is highlighted:

• the poster should understand and state that it is just one way of interpretation--either the poster's or someone else's that he/she quotes;

• the poster should also show his goodwill and mutual understanding of the hoary Hindu tradition by indicating how this negative instance stands against other positive content and that he/she is also aware of the positive content as well;

• and the poster should weigh if his/her statement is objective and civil enough, without unduly hurting any traditionalist feelings and sentiments.

As for my distinguishing between goodwill and mutual understanding, goodwill is what is in store, and mutual understanding is goodwill in action. I am sure that everyone of us have goodwill but not many do show it in action.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri PV Iyer,

It is perfectly okay to send me a PM regarding my questions. But, please be specific in your response. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

Sir I am sending you a private message sometime later. I am not liking this fighting and discussing things and making fun of people. I used strong words which HH has taken offence to.
But to reiterate my stand, whatever words someone may find offensive, I only object to her arguments, and not to her personally.
If she thinks otherwise, what can I do here.
I am not the kind to go on a street fight putting my views and what I think of her subsequent response in open. Neither I want to prove my assertions 100% right. That can come later. If you want me to justify and I can do it in private if that is okay. You may choose to or not choose to publicize it. That can be your stand and I wont object.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Hundreds if not thousands of books have been published and tonnes of research articles have been written in the last 40 years portraying the Brahmins as the cause of all ills plaguing India. Universities and research institutions are at the back of it. This is political correctness. Because the political power is in the hands of such groups and it will be for ever. They have the Money and Power. Anti-Hinduism in the guise of anti-Brahminism has the support of the political parties.

All your views will be countered by quoting these books.

The Brahmins can not do anything against these government sponsored propaganda.

This kind of discussions quoting published resources will always go against the Brahmins because there is hardly any book which gives the Brahmin point of view. Such a book will never see the light of the day because there will be no backing.

Old history books which have tried to present a balanced view are no longer prescribed as text books. In fact you will have a tough time getting hold of these books.

Goebbels was in power only for a limited period of time. But these later day Goebbels have been in power for long and will continue to be in power for ever.

So let us not talk about published books and articles which will get us nowhere. The Dice is totally loaded against the Brahmins.

Please see this post about Intellectual Prostitutes.

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-24.html#post72031

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nacchinarkiniyan,

It doesn't really matter if there is a propaganda against the brahmins, even if a government sponsored one. It is not the real doom. The state of affairs of a state , a nation or even the world can change at any time but what really matters is that whether brahmins possess the inner conviction that their abilities are adaptive and can meet the situation and they can be brought to bear a positive influence on the society. But if brahmins lose this conviction about the positive and elevating role they can play in the society and just go along with it, that is when the brahmins would be losing the battle for good.

 

[pviyer]

Dear Sri PV Iyer,

It is perfectly okay to send me a PM regarding my questions. But, please be specific in your response. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

Sir as request I have sent messages in 3 parts. And cover all questions raised by HH. I will be leaving in a few hours and will not be able to respond to any queries for the next few days.
Thanks,
PV

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

The entire idea of the propaganda is to make Brahmins lost their self confidence. The British perceived the Brahmins as the biggest threat. The missionaries always felt that it is the Brahmins who were the stumbling block preventing the conversion of India to a Christian state. Specific instructions were given from England not to admit Brahmins in their schools. The local fathers were faced with a situation where they would have had an almost empty school without Brahmins. So the rules were relaxed. But reluctantly.

What the British hated was for the first time in their history they were faced with people who considered them as inferior. Their racial superiority took a beating. I was reading an old book by an I.C.S officer. He narrates how a Brahmin who came to met him brought a servant with a pail of water, and how after shaking his hands he washed his hands. How he was told that the Brahmin had to take a bath after visitng him.

Later the British thought the Brahmins were the biggest trouble makes and curbing them will help in denying independence. This thought of a Civil Service officer in Madras Presidency is recorded. He favoured forming a group of Feudal land lords faithful to the British to counter the Brahmins.

That is the genesis of the Justice party and anti-Brahminism in Tamil Nadu.

The reason for my posting the earlier message was to advise the members of the futility of trying to argue out these points. There are many internet forums which are dedicated to anti-Brahminism. Some of the older members have been arguing there for years without any results.

It is a pityy that this has to happen in a Tamil Brahmins forum.

 

[sravna]

The entire idea of the propaganda is to make Brahmins lost their self confidence. The British perceived the Brahmins as the biggest threat. The missionaries always felt that it is the Brahmins who were the stumbling block preventing the conversion of India to a Christian state. Specific instructions were given from England not to admit Brahmins in their schools. The local fathers were faced with a situation where they would have had an almost empty school without Brahmins. So the rules were relaxed. But reluctantly.

What the British hated was for the first time in their history they were faced with people who considered them as inferior. Their racial superiority took a beating. I was reading an old book by an I.C.S officer. He narrates how a Brahmin who came to met him brought a servant with a pail of water, and how after shaking his hands he washed his hands. How he was told that the Brahmin had to take a bath after visitng him.

Later the British thought the Brahmins were the biggest trouble makes and curbing them will help in denying independence. This thought of a Civil Service officer in Madras Presidency is recorded. He favoured forming a group of Feudal land lords faithful to the British to counter the Brahmins.

That is the genesis of the Justice party and anti-Brahminism in Tamil Nadu.

The reason for my posting the earlier message was to advise the members of the futility of trying to argue out these points. There are many internet forums which are dedicated to anti-Brahminism. Some of the older members have been arguing there for years without any results.

It is a pityy that this has to happen in a Tamil Brahmins forum.

Good point. My concern however would not be on trying to win the argument for brahmins which anyway as pointed out by Shri. Nacchinarkiniyan would be and has been futile but brahmins themselves not being unduly influenced by pressures but being positive about their role in the society.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Shri Nara,

Conquering of ego is what the crux of hinduism is about. If a rationalist strives for that, the orthodoxy would have no issue over that.

Dear Shri Sravna,

I feel rationalists have far lesser ego than traditionalists. Am not speaking of "political-rationalists" but those who are rational in the sense of being explorers seeking logical answers...

I also feel ignorance breeds arrogance.

Yagnavalkya was possibly the earliest recorded rationalist. Hope you will read more on him.

Best wishes.

 

[suraju06]

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

Dear Sangom Sir,

How sad! I thought you will handle this in a much different way as your sensibilities are not very fragile. Let us leave it.Your observation that "the orthodoxy like Saidevo, Suraju, Sravna, P.V. Iyer, etc.," indicates how far removed you are from the reality. The orthodoxy of the Brahmin fold never come here to discuss any thing. They are happy with their belief system and values and they never want to come and discuss anything with the reformists for fear of getting corrupted. They avoid reformists and atheists like plague. So you can be assured that myself, (saidevo and others I would like add here but I can not represent them) who oppose you am only opposing your passionate views about homogenisation and the nihilist's approach to everything that is traditional and we are all as much caught in the vagaries of time as you have been. Only difference is that we refuse to accept defeat and keep fighting whereas the reformists have already buckled and wilted under pressure.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

HH,

I am not interested in discussing the Missionary issue. As I said, I understand the futility of discussing such contentious issues here. More heat is generated and very little light thrown. I was only pointing out how the British viewed the Brahmins. There are a number of very old books about India written by English Missionaries and other British residents which bear out this . Some of them are available in archives.org, google books and project Gutenberg.

I do not expect any one to agree with my views. Nor am I interested in proving that I am correct. Not on caste issues.

Thank you.

 

[happyhindu]

The orthodoxy of the Brahmin fold never come here to discuss any thing. They are happy with their belief system and values and they never want to come and discuss anything with the reformists for fear of getting corrupted. They avoid reformists and atheists like plague.

Dear Shri Raju,
If the orthodoxy avoids reformists like plague then they should avoid the teachings of the Alwars, Pillai Lokacharya and Sri Ramanuja also.

If orthodoxy avoids atheists like plague then they should avoid the advaitins like plague.

Regards.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

I feel rationalists have far lesser ego than traditionalists. Am not speaking of "political-rationalists" but those who are rational in the sense of being explorers seeking logical answers...

I also feel ignorance breeds arrogance.

Yagnavalkya was possibly the earliest recorded rationalist. Hope you will read more on him.

Best wishes.

Dear Smt. HH,

Being logical and seeking logical answers IMO is not related to how big one's ego is. Logic is what you use to acquire knowledge. That achievement itself may feed your ego and very likely will unless it is moderated by higher values. Also, the fact remains that those who are truly orthodox and try to live by real values are far less afflicted by ego problems.