about brahmins

[s007bala]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

KRS

Mahaswamigal attained Kailasham in 1994 after living with us in his physical body for 100 years.My maternal grandmothers brother lived his life in kanchi math dedicating to seva for Mahaswamigal.Many of his associate seval dals have spoken to me about MuKa having darshan.Becoz of his public politics profile,certain truths were explained to us.But MuKa have never denigrated Mahaswamigal and now Ammachi & Bhagavan Sathya Sai sharing the same dias openly in public view,makes me only believe my granduncle more.I have faith,so i believe.You do not have faith,so you do not believe in what i have written.Thats ok.Its your view that is all.

sb

 

[s007bala]

re

Hey Bala,

You do not know what you are talking about.

Professing love for MahaPeriaval you readily admit you don't follow His teachings.

Your explanations above why a widow is supposed to shave off her hair is pathetic.

Do you mean to say that a widow has no right to remarry? Is this you position? If so, why?

KRS

KRS

Of course a widow has every right to re-marry.That is why i said,i cannot & will not follow to the tee! and one is always guided by his/her common sense or un-common sense as the case maybe.eep:

sb

 

[suvarchas]

Dear Mr. s007bala
I simply don't want to start any acrimonious debate on this: But the fact remains that Sri Kanchi Acharya refused to see widows, which is against God's will, in my opinion. Your explanation on why he met with Indira Gandhi doesn't hold water.
My two cents!

Hello,
As one closely associated with Kanchi mutt for more than 25 years.let me clarify that Maha periyava never prohibited Brahmin widows from seeing him.He had to fast if he saw anyone who had not tonsured her head.Only his overzealous attendants used to isolate widows from seeing him as H.H was known to fast most of the days and was on frugal diet.H.H. was compassion personified

 

[pannvalan]

Mahaperiyaval must have chided his over-zealous attendants and prevented them from insulting women, for no fault of theirs (no woman will want to see her husband pre-decease her).

 

[suvarchas]

Mahaperiyaval must have chided his over-zealous attendants and prevented them from insulting women, for no fault of theirs (no woman will want to see her husband pre-decease her).

About Mahaperiyava chiding his attendants,Iam not aware.But he dissuaded them not to prevent anyone from seeing him which I have personally known on a particular day of ending his chaturmasya vrata while in Satara when some widows came from Tamilnadu

 

[silverfox]

There you go again! Going by your quotes "he had to fast if he saw anyone (of course, this means only widowed women) who had not tonsured her head"......
Why so? Where does it say that a widow has to shave her head whereas the man can go scot-free? And, so what if he saw a widow? Why should he fast? Was it a sin? I am absolutely certain GOD will not do that to the widows!!!!

Again, these things are the products of our male-dominated male-chauvanistic society. I don't know why many of you continue to come up with excuses.

Hello,
As one closely associated with Kanchi mutt for more than 25 years.let me clarify that Maha periyava never prohibited Brahmin widows from seeing him.He had to fast if he saw anyone who had not tonsured her head.Only his overzealous attendants used to isolate widows from seeing him as H.H was known to fast most of the days and was on frugal diet.H.H. was compassion personified

 

[suvarchas]

There you go again! Going by your quotes "he had to fast if he saw anyone (of course, this means only widowed women) who had not tonsured her head"......
Why so? Where does it say that a widow has to shave her head whereas the man can go scot-free? And, so what if he saw a widow? Why should he fast? Was it a sin? I am absolutely certain GOD will not do that to the widows!!!!

Again, these things are the products of our male-dominated male-chauvanistic society. I don't know why many of you continue to come up with excuses.

For one who knew Mahaperiyava,he never arrogated to himself the powers to alter the scriptures as the english educated minds of ours do.As a pontiff he was very clear that he had only to uphold traditions and not alter it as we do our constitution.For people exposed and associated with the west some principles like these may be hard to digest.Even a man who is a widower has certain disqualifications like he cannot perform yagnas and so.I do not have the temerity to accuse the smrithis as creations of MCPs

 

[silverfox]

Dear Mr. Suvarchas:
What has exposure to the Western culture got to do with ill-treating our women? So, what you are saying is that one must uphold the tradition even if that tradition is bad policy or outright discrimination? Sri Sankaracharya could have changed that for the good of humanity! Sure, a widower cannot perform yagnas (big deal) whereas the widow is shunned from everything, she was disfigured....
Well, sir, I don't want to enter into any more discussions, lest I am accused of talking nonsense and being impertinent. My views stand. Thank you.

For one who knew Mahaperiyava,he never arrogated to himself the powers to alter the scriptures as the english educated minds of ours do.As a pontiff he was very clear that he had only to uphold traditions and not alter it as we do our constitution.For people exposed and associated with the west some principles like these may be hard to digest.Even a man who is a widower has certain disqualifications like he cannot perform yagnas and so.I do not have the temerity to accuse the smrithis as creations of MCPs

 

[suvarchas]

Dear Mr. Suvarchas:
What has exposure to the Western culture got to do with ill-treating our women? So, what you are saying is that one must uphold the tradition even if that tradition is bad policy or outright discrimination? Sri Sankaracharya could have changed that for the good of humanity! Sure, a widower cannot perform yagnas (big deal) whereas the widow is shunned from everything, she was disfigured....
Well, sir, I don't want to enter into any more discussions, lest I am accused of talking nonsense and being impertinent. My views stand. Thank you.

The concept of equality with regard to gender itself is never envisaged in Hindu scriptures.Also it depends on perceptions moulded by our views which is essentially influenced by education..When we are entitled to our opinions,Mahaperiyava equalled was entitled to his.He never forced anybody to see him.It was we who wanted to seek his blessings and not the otherway round

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Silverfox Ji,
Again, people who have quit the forum resurrect with different handles!

I can only say this in defense of Maha Periaval. He saw His role as not contributing to a change of life as ordained by modern life.

He is viewed as the avatar of Shiva Himself. So, perhaps He was not the right person to look up for changes in the customs of the society.

I would then would like to look up to other saints in our religion who were more attuned to the changes in society, like Swamy Vivekananda Ji. Our religion allows for such differing views.

Regards,
KRS

The concept of equality with regard to gender itself is never envisaged in Hindu scriptures.Also it depends on perceptions moulded by our views which is essentially influenced by education..When we are entitled to our opinions,Mahaperiyava equalled was entitled to his.He never forced anybody to see him.It was we who wanted to seek his blessings and not the otherway round

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shri KRS,

Acharyas are guides to us, in upholding the values of our vedas... they do not declare themselves as equal to God and neither would they perceive themselves to be.

It is us, little minds, that are so far away from rituals & traditions that our scriptures prescribe, that look in awe at an individual who abides by the vedas.

What suvarchas probably says is simply that the acharya stuck to the vedas as that is his right, as is yours to perceive it differently. And he probably never compelled anybody to visit him. If something does not rhyme with us, we should not do it; those who disliked it should not have visited him.

Isn't it simple?

Are saints to be revered or despised based on how our perception of things are?

Again, people who have quit the forum resurrect with different handles!

And this inference seems to be misleading with the context discussed here...

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[s007bala]

KRS,

>>I would then would like to look up to other saints in our religion who were more attuned to the changes in society, like Swamy Vivekananda Ji. Our religion allows for such differing views.<<

Bravo,well said.

sb

 

[s007bala]

silverfox

>>My views stand.<<

Good,let it stand with you only and let it not be publicised with that of your differing stand of Mahaswamigal's seva dal's (attendants),as Mahaswamigal who is an avataaram of chandramouliswaran never discriminated anyone personally,he was above all these petty issues.

sb

 

[s007bala]

S S

>>If something does not rhyme with us, we should not do it; those who disliked it should not have visited him.<<

Dhool kalapitta ayya!Exactly correct.

sb

 

[silverfox]

Fair enough .. that we seek his blessings and so we go to him. But then, Swamiji is in the public domain; and if he cannot see widows, (or after seeing them, go on fast as if it was a sin) then how could he be called 'jagadguru' or 'mahaperiyava'? Also, calling a mortal an incarnation of Lord Shiva somehow doesn't sit well.
Thank you, Sri Seshadri Subramaniam, for your comments:
"Acharyas are guides to us, in upholding the values of our vedas... they do not declare themselves as equal to God and neither would they perceive themselves to be."
It is incredible that i see so many responses to this from learned gentlemen; yet none of them spoke for the poor widow who wanted to go see Swamiji to get his blessings.
Sri KRS, thank you for your comments. However, I was merely responding to Sri Suvarchas's comments on my posting.

No personal attacks on me, fellas! just stick to the subject!

The concept of equality with regard to gender itself is never envisaged in Hindu scriptures.Also it depends on perceptions moulded by our views which is essentially influenced by education..When we are entitled to our opinions,Mahaperiyava equalled was entitled to his.He never forced anybody to see him.It was we who wanted to seek his blessings and not the otherway round

 

[kunjuppu]

silverfox,

way back in one of my posts i have expressed views similar to yours, re kanchi mutt.

when i was young, one of my father's cousins, was widowed young with 5 little daughters. very distraught, she went to kanchi to seek solace. only to be rebuffed, and asked to shear her hair, and wear white clothes if she wanted a darshan. this, to a young lady 28 years old, and hoping to find a job to feed the family!

i think my entire family was disgusted at this, including a very young me, who has maintained this same attitude over a 50 year span.

also, we had some unsavoury relatives whose activities can be described dubious at the most. these folks, at the end of their career, camped themselves in the kanchi mutt, and very soon, became the governing coterie of the mutt. i can only imagine the values set by these folks and when i hear someone talks so highly of the kanchi mutt, it takes
all my efforts to keep quiet.

also, in my opinion, the mutt has never called for an inclusive hinduism, of all castes and creeds, and above the all the dalits. it has been brahmin centric, and that too in my opinion, a reactionary organization propagating retro values, out of tune with current times.

having said this, i do acknowledge that there are a lot of brahmins who sincerely revere the notion of kanchi mutthood. i respect them for it, and unless provoked or it becomes a matter of discussion, i abstain my views, with absolutely no regrets.

 

[KRS]

Sri Silverfox Ji, sorry to have interfered in your conversation.

Sri SS Ji,
I hope I have not given you the impression that I dislike true orthodoxy. If one is true to himself and follows that path, I have every respect for that.

Why I posted what I posted was that a person who withdrew from the Forum some time ago used the exact words as this to explain to Sri Silverfox Ji before (about a widower). If this is a fantastic coincidence, then I apologize.

Regards,
KRS

 

[s007bala]

Silverfox

>>Fair enough .. that we seek his blessings and so we go to him. But then, Swamiji is in the public domain; and if he cannot see widows, (or after seeing them, go on fast as if it was a sin) then how could he be called 'jagadguru' or 'mahaperiyava'? <<

You are way out of line here,don't you think so?.As,You are neither in the leagues of the achaaryaals nor even competent enuff to understand the sentiment behind actions of such Mahaan's.Sin,is a concept of Christians,its not so with hinduism.Now ,i am able to second guess where your thought process is emanating from,to some extent or i could be entirely wrong in comprehending your writings.

>>Also, calling a mortal an incarnation of Lord Shiva somehow doesn't sit well.<<

As per our shastras,humanity consists of Deva Gunam and Asura Gunam.All of us are divine by nature and follow certain sampradayams from time immemorial,and human birth is a rare occurence as per hinduism.Do you think Lord Shiva was not born as mortal?If he was not human then what do you think Lord Shiva was?

>>Thank you, Sri Seshadri Subramaniam, for your comments:
"Acharyas are guides to us, in upholding the values of our vedas... they do not declare themselves as equal to God and neither would they perceive themselves to be."
It is incredible that i see so many responses to this from learned gentlemen; yet none of them spoke for the poor widow who wanted to go see Swamiji to get his blessings.<<

Sorry to intrude your addressing to S S,as i am taking some liberties to join in your discussion,-The poor widow as you put it,ought to have known such a sampradayam exists in Kanchi Math,despite that she took upon herself to visit the Mahaswamigal speaks volumes of her lack of guidance.

When i write this,please do not take it personal,for all i know the widow about whom you write may have been someone you love very dearly and are extremely emotional about it.I genuinely am sorry to tell you,you are continuing a discussion which has happened in the past,and hope only the 'god' should show you the understanding (as you seem to state god often),that you desperately lack,in this instance only.

>>Sri KRS, thank you for your comments. However, I was merely responding to Sri Suvarchas's comments on my posting.
No personal attacks on me, fellas! just stick to the subject!<<

I hope you do understand and comprehend my writings as,not a personal attack on you,all i am trying to do is to educate you about Mahswamigal.For all you know,you might even incurred bad karmas for janma janmas on account of saying or writing things which you innocently are unaware off.I am sure i would have been chided by Mahaswamigal thru his attendants,that i even abstain from discussing all these things in a public forum,but my agyaanam is getting the better of me,when it comes to Mahaswamigal,so a very feeble attempt to write things as i know.

sb

 

[s007bala]

kunjuppu

>>silverfox,
way back in one of my posts i have expressed views similar to yours, re kanchi mutt.
when i was young, one of my father's cousins, was widowed young with 5 little daughters. very distraught, she went to kanchi to seek solace. only to be rebuffed, and asked to shear her hair, and wear white clothes if she wanted a darshan. this, to a young lady 28 years old, and hoping to find a job to feed the family!<<

Mahaswamigal comes from a different era all together like child marriages practices,sati,...etc were part of the Sanathana Dharma.One must have a sense of balance to understand about a saint par excellance.The widow thinks she is visiting a 'guru' then she has to implicitly listen to the 'guru',and how he wants her to present herself for darshan.Since you live in Canada,aren't there dress codes for each and every formal event?I am surprised at your ignorance ,as in Kerala even today certain people are not allowed to even enter temples and if they do it,then to remove dosham a whole set of sadangugal is conducted.These are sampradayams.

>>i think my entire family was disgusted at this, including a very young me, who has maintained this same attitude over a 50 year span. <<

Only those who have the blessings of the achaaryaal can even go and have a darshan.The karmas accrued by us is all known to Mahaswamigal,but then its a moot point,for your young mind has been made already, by virtue of your immediate elders in the family.

>>also, we had some unsavoury relatives whose activities can be described dubious at the most. these folks, at the end of their career, camped themselves in the kanchi mutt, and very soon, became the governing coterie of the mutt. i can only imagine the values set by these folks and when i hear someone talks so highly of the kanchi mutt, it takes all my efforts to keep quiet.<<

I can only understand your pique by virtue of your personal relatives behaviour to transfer it to the entire Kanchi Math.

>>also, in my opinion, the mutt has never called for an inclusive hinduism, of all castes and creeds, and above the all the dalits. it has been brahmin centric, and that too in my opinion, a reactionary organization propagating retro values, out of tune with current times. <<

Today if brahmins of TN are existing with any sense of security,we owe a big one to Kanchi Achaaryaals.H H Jayendrar Saraswathi has been canvassing unflinchingly for the downtrodden despite the huge humiliation heaped upon by Kazhagams.But then,you are definitely entitled to your views and opinions.Again this is no personal attack on you or in anyway belittling your experiance with Kanchi Math,as the achaaryaals know what they are doing and for whom they are doing sathwic actions for.

>>having said this, i do acknowledge that there are a lot of brahmins who sincerely revere the notion of kanchi mutthood. i respect them for it, and unless provoked or it becomes a matter of discussion, i abstain my views, with absolutely no regrets. <<

Glad to have your views about Mahaswamigal and Kanchi Math,and maybe there is a lesson for all of us in discussing issue without any personal animosity.

sb

 

[silverfox]

Dear Kunjuppu:
Thank you for your posting. I, completey agree with your statement:

"..........having said this, i do acknowledge that there are a lot of brahmins who sincerely revere the notion of kanchi mutthood. i respect them for it, and unless provoked or it becomes a matter of discussion, i abstain my views, with absolutely no regrets".

I believe in "let sleeping dogs lie"; I had to respond to Suvarchas who rekindled this old discussion by addressing me.

Sri KRS: You did not interfere in anything; your well-thought-out comments are always welcome.

Mr. s007bala: I simply don't want to enter into any arguments with you; this is not personal. However, I cannot comprehend your style of writing. It is becuase of my shortcomings. You say:

".....You are way out of line here,don't you think so?....."

Just because I express my views (which I have every right to, as much as you do, too), it doesn't mean I have crossed any line (metaphorically speaking!). It is not my intention to insult or defame the Swamiji. However, during arguments, one has to point out things that the other person may not like. Maybe you belong to the Kanchi Matam!

You can criticize my postings but not me; look at the messages .. not the messenger!

 

[s007bala]

silverfox

>>Just because I express my views (which I have every right to, as much as you do, too), it doesn't mean I have crossed any line (metaphorically speaking!). It is not my intention to insult or defame the Swamiji. However, during arguments, one has to point out things that the other person may not like. Maybe you belong to the Kanchi Matam!

You can criticize my postings but not me; look at the messages .. not the messenger! <<

When i wrote that,i actually meant in 'status'.Only people of equal stature can even deride the Mahaan,but then for me he is Mahaan and for you he is not,by virtue of widows dress code & appearance.So,i stop myself from saying anything about your messages,as one can take a horse to the pond to drink water but cannot force it to drink is an old english proverb.Thanks for your patience with me.Regards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrashekarendra_Saraswati

sb

 

[silverfox]

Mr. s007bala! Talk to the hand!

[s007bala:So,i stop myself from saying anything about your messages,as one can take a horse to the pond to drink water but cannot force it to drink is an old english proverb.Thanks for your patience with me.]

 

[s007bala]

re

Mr. s007bala! Talk to the hand!

[s007bala:So,i stop myself from saying anything about your messages,as one can take a horse to the pond to drink water but cannot force it to drink is an old english proverb.Thanks for your patience with me.]

I am sorry silverfox,i do not understand your statement?Did i write something wrong?

From website of Kanchi Math


Reminiscing the second visit Nagamma said, while all the other asramites went out and waited at the gate for His Holiness, she alone was left with the Maharishi.
"Why have you not joined them?" he asked her.
"Because the Svami does not see Brahmin widows who have not shaved their heads", Nagamma replied.
Though mature and tolerant not to denounce the orthodox custom, she felt a tinge of sadness. The Maharishi just nodded his head and looked at her with compassion, The compassion assuaged her sadness. The simple nod too conveyed a lot to the discerning disciple. It signified the Maharishi's acceptance of both the Acharya's adherence to the institutional customs, and Nagamma's wisdom in not following the other such windows who used to peep at the Acharya from a hidden place.

http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/5-58.html

sb

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

My personal view: I do not agree with the view that a widow's head should be tonsured.

I also believe that a widow should be allowed to remarry, if she wishes to...
_____________________________________________________________

I could find no direct reference on this topic as to how it came into tradition, though

http://books.google.com/books?id=VY...=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PRA1-PA164,M1

this link tries to explain how it came into being (read from page 159)

From a reading of a section of this book, it seems that initially Vaishnavas were not in favour of tonsure, but the practice spread later on...

But probably, there is always an element of doubt, as is always in such cases of tradition, as to whether we can find out the real reason at all!!!

It could be that some widows, living with the remembrance of her deceased beloved, could have been troubled by suitors or by the society on account of physical beauty, and could have decided to do away with her beauty - hair being the most important object of beauty.

This could have sparked of other widows opting for the same.... later, it could have become a norm... then probably imposition, as it could mean that who does not tonsure her hair was/is not true to her relationship.

A classic case of impeded independence of the woman...

 

[malgova.mango]

sireyanin contribution for the mighty minds of our forum members....I may be wrong too...

Acharya's roles are many - he is a role model for sanyasis , a leader, a living model for the followers of ORDER , in which some members may be young and some members may be old and HE should set examples for TIMES to come..

As you all know, it takes a lot of vairagyam and discipline to hold celibacy vows..(for both sanyasins and widow)

If Acharyal's a living model , who is a guide to young and celibate sanyasins for all tenses of TIME - who were holding a hard vows such as celibacy - he needs to take extreme precaution. Because as a GURU of Paramacharya ORDER he needs to set the example by living.

If THE ROLE MODEL freely mingles with widows, that gives a cue to his followers to follow that, and some may ended up giving up a sanyasin and get married with the widow.

Moreover if ,the law of the order demands the Acharyals to follow a rule HE has no big choice. Remember HH often say that he is a follower of the ORDER and he lacks any power to set or change any rule. Humilty personified.

A living saint indeed.
etho en chirrarivukku ettinathu..