about brahmins

[malgova.mango]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sesh!

no body has to right to impose any vratam on other, it applies to even the mundane ekadasi vratam.

the vows/vratams have to come from inside of a person.

In those days we believed in heaven, and we believed a good soul goes to heaven - So for Swarga Prapti to women to join their husbands in heaven - these vratams are advised.

If one doesn't believed in all those , then one has freedom to live any kind of life-style. Remeber these were advise for Para Loka Sowkyam - Please see in this context.

mm

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

mango, really nice explanation... and the reasoning is good...

Just a small clarification needed - did the acharya see kumaris or sumangalis? If he did, and if that did not cast a blemish on his Vratham, or did not trouble his "living model" life-style, how would a widow be the cause??? What even a kumari or a sumangali could not do, how would a widow???

Sesh!

no body has to right to impose any vratam on other, it applies to even the mundane ekadasi vratam.

the vows/vratams have to come from inside of a person.

In those days we believed in heaven, and we believed a good soul goes to heaven - So for Swarga Prapti to women to join their husbands in heaven - these vratams are advised.

If one doesn't believed in all those , then one has freedom to live any kind of life-style. Remeber these were advise for Para Loka Sowkyam - Please see in this context.

mm

What I intented in my post was that some vows which were initially left on one's choice could have become a sort of custom over the centuries...

 

[s007bala]

S S

The achaaryal's are said by believers to be 'tri-kala gyaanis'.That being said about them,we as ordinary human beings do not even know whats going to happen the next kshanam,are debating about mahaans of a very scholarly calibre.

Can anyone of us even have a normal conversation with them achaaryals,let alone debate ( bhedham or Vaadham) like how Mandana Misra had with Adi Sankara.We lack the neccessary qualifications,isn't it?as we are trained in other subjects of science.

Even the mantra recital is supposed to be pronounced in a certain way only,otherwise they will not yield 'phalam' for your labor of chanting them or you will not have 'siddhi praptham' of your chant,but above all these it's only a pure heart of devotion which will melt the god of Narayana or Siva or Brahma.....it's extremely difficult to gauge in a forum like this,whether the intent of a person is really to know the shastras or ridicule the saints actions based on one's limited grasp of vidya,especially 'brahma vidya'.I am in no way doubting your sincereity or knowledge or belittling you,as you are an exemplary person,which i have come to understand by your maturity displayed in various threads.

sb

 

[s007bala]

re

Sesh!

no body has to right to impose any vratam on other, it applies to even the mundane ekadasi vratam.

the vows/vratams have to come from inside of a person.

In those days we believed in heaven, and we believed a good soul goes to heaven - So for Swarga Prapti to women to join their husbands in heaven - these vratams are advised.

If one doesn't believed in all those , then one has freedom to live any kind of life-style. Remeber these were advise for Para Loka Sowkyam - Please see in this context.

mm

OM to that!Shanthi Shanthi Shanthihi!

sb

 

[silverfox]

I see the discussions are going way over my simple head!!!
However, Seshadri, excellent question! (see below!). Why didn't I think of that?
I would love to see the explanation for this!!


[Seshadri Subramaniam - Just a small clarification needed - did the acharya see kumaris or sumangalis? If he did, and if that did not cast a blemish on his Vratham, or did not trouble his "living model" life-style, how would a widow be the cause??? What even a kumari or a sumangali could not do, how would a widow???]

 

[s007bala]

Silverfox

>>Just a small clarification needed - did the acharya see kumaris or sumangalis? If he did, and if that did not cast a blemish on his Vratham, or did not trouble his "living model" life-style, how would a widow be the cause??? What even a kumari or a sumangali could not do, how would a widow???] <<

A widow in olden India's society was treated differently by men folks.Due to lack of education,oppurtunity,economic disparity-the widow's status was reduced to one of the 'ridicule'.That is how the male-dominated society functioned,untill Abrahamic faiths came into the picture,did what they did,and created a cauldron full of confusion,which is prevalent even todays world in India,becoz Indians have lost common-sense and self-confidence.

But todays women of India are a different ball game all together,as men-folks encouraged ladies to study,become independent and economically self-sufficient,without depending upon men-folks,so a breed of women who have the confidence to face trials & tribulations has emerged.In the spiritual realms also,its not a coincidence,many a number of Amma's have incarnated to lead for Sanathana Dharma.I myself love Mata Amritananda Mayi as my spiritual mother.

The achaaryaals in question is prolly Mahaswamigal,but then do all other sampradayas do the same as Kanchi Math?Are the Iyengar achaaryals different from Iyer acaaharyals?So,collectively speaking,a young boy named Swaminathan,was thrust into a position of power,a spiritual seat,and for 87 years years,he protected Sanathana Dharma.Sanathana Dharma means all religions of the world,instead of the narrow interpretation of HInduism only.

The Mahaswamigal gave counsel to all people of all religious faiths.He earned it by his hard work and merit,of his thoughts,speech,and actions,which synchronised in tandem,for all to witness.

While many shastras are horrendous to us western educated curricula of educational people,but the western culture people,adapted & adopted the essence of teachings or values of hinduism,in various hues.

The only super-power of the world USA,elected its first African-American President in 2009 after its independance from the Britsh Throne-as 44th president of USA-so,we evolve as the time passes by and learning from past,to have a better present and hope a better future.

Did Mahaswamigal re-write shastras?he could have very well done it,as he was Mahaswamigal-but he didn't.Therein lies the experiance,maturity,divya-drishti,.....etc which as humans who are ordinary in thinking faculties,should, if they adhere to him as 'guru' then listen to him.If his ways are un-acceptable,then leave him as your guru, or ask him for the explanation of his actions?who are we to second guess his actions?with present day world scenarios prevailing?

sb

 

[palindrome]

A widow in olden India's society was treated differently by men folks.Due to lack of education,oppurtunity,economic disparity-the widow's status was reduced to one of the 'ridicule'.

Woman as a widow was not treated differently by all societies. Kunti, a widow could debate with Krishna on what is fate. She did not shave off her hair and sit aside.

Durga, Kali, Pravati, Lakshmi, Saraswati did not come from a male chauvanistic society.

India has a long tradition of worshipping feminine as mother divine.

The head of a mutt established as sharada mutt to worship the feminine as divine could have set an example of seeing the mother in every woman.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

sb, I think you are missing the core query here... it is not on the acharya's merits or spiritual leadership that is being questioned...

The relative position of an individual, group or creed in a society is created by the society itself! When one section has parochially agreed on a stance, how will the other defend it, esp on matters such as widow remarriage, "theetu" etc?

I am not trying to put down anything here, but you see, inability to answer these types of issues with a clear logic is the basis for our group to crumble down to external forces.

I have been to Dasavathara Sannidhi in Srirangam, where Azhagiyasingar (one of the Jeers) performs daily pooja himself... and I remember widowed old paatis coming to the temple for the daily "thathi annam" or curd-rice prasadam... (readers correct me here, if am wrong).

While many shastras are horrendous to us western educated curricula of educational people....

I agree with what you say, but only to an extent... coz., if something is not right, it is simply not right.

shall continue later.... (gtg now)...

 

[s007bala]

palindrome

>>Woman as a widow was not treated differently by all societies. Kunti, a widow could debate with Krishna on what is fate. She did not shave off her hair and sit aside.<<

Kunti comes from a period at least 5000 years back,when the geography of India itself was different,isn't it?The Abrahamic faiths were not occupants as ruler of people of india.Therefore bringing kunti into picture,is entirely a different era.Lord Krishna had 16000 wives as per some purans,as rasa leelam.Is it physically possible for you & me,to do so?Did Lord Krisnha have a spiritual guru or not?Did the Lord's action in Mahabharatham portray,absolute truth in his actions,or did he for the sake of protection of Sanathana Dharma,change or modify his actions,as per circumstances?

>>Durga, Kali, Pravati, Lakshmi, Saraswati did not come from a male chauvanistic society.

India has a long tradition of worshipping feminine as mother divine. <<

I agree with you totally,as per Shakthi worshipping,yes,we are originals.

>>The head of a mutt established as sharada mutt to worship the feminine as divine could have set an example of seeing the mother in every woman. Could he not see that?<<

Mahaswami took the recourse of umbrage under Shastras,Sampradayams...etc as per his disciplic succession,he was ordained to.But his shisya H H JS did veer away from traditional approach,and where has it landed him?

>>If there is temptation on a man's part, is it the fault of the woman or the man? Why a man chooses to lay the blame of his own temptation on a woman? <<

More often than,its natural for man to be polygamous than women.But,women too are governed by bodily needs.Just becoz she becomes a widow at young age,does not prevent her to harbor physical intimacy with a man.Coming to grips with this fundamental truth,was flawed with indian men as a whole.When a man has many physical intimacies with many women=he becomes a stud.But when a woman does have multiple physical intimacies with very many partners=she becomes a slut!!!These are ways our society function in India,even today as i write this....yes marginal changes have occured and women don't give a damn anymore and are emboldened to take chances,but still want the cake and eat it to,as per their convenience.

So,in a nutshell,the man-woman relationship is undergoing a paradigm shift in consciouness,wherein Mahaswamigals Shastric Injunctions are thrown to dust bin,as we are imparted knowledge of the Abrahamic Faith cultural discoveries,which underwent such transformations in its own shores.

sb

 

[s007bala]

SS

>>The relative position of an individual, group or creed in a society is created by the society itself! When one section has parochially agreed on a stance, how will the other defend it, esp on matters such as widow remarriage, "theetu" etc?<<

How does society evolve?from traditonal conservative approach?as per shastras written by our forefathers?especially when it comes to women?

Shouldn't women decide for themselves,as to what is acceptable to them or not acceptable to them?So,there are trendsetters in society,who take bold steps to do actions different from what is accepted norm.

Just becoz Mahaswamigal attendants created a hulla-bulla ballyhoo about widows being visualised for darshanam,did not prevent any changes that the society had to undergo,as Mahaswamigal is supposed to have quipped to people ' naa enna deivama ' ?In fact i was shocked when i heard that Mahaswamigal has quipped like this and was in total depression for a while,as i believed him to be ' spiritual avataram '!!But as matured mentally with life experiances teaching me a lesson,i am able to comprehend,what Mahaswamigal quipped.

I can only speak for myself and my emotional attachment to Mahaswamigal,but there are others who judge me for my thoughts,speech,actions in life,and have even gotten mad with me becoz they view me differently as its their perception vis a vis Mahaswamigal.So,follow the principle instead of the person=advaitham=non-duality of Adi Sankara=all confusion cleared for me!!

sb

 

[palindrome]

Kunti comes from a period at least 5000 years back,when the geography of India itself was different,isn't it?The Abrahamic faiths were not occupants as ruler of people of india.Therefore bringing kunti into picture,is entirely a different era.Lord Krishna had 16000 wives as per some purans,as rasa leelam.Is it physically possible for you & me,to do so?Did Lord Krisnha have a spiritual guru or not?Did the Lord's action in Mahabharatham portray,absolute truth in his actions,or did he for the sake of protection of Sanathana Dharma,change or modify his actions,as per circumstances?

It is not right to blame other faiths for degradation and decomposition of hinduism. Shiva taught Yoga which did not become popular in all ancient societies. Krishna defeated Indra, the vedic god. Change and modification are part of the evolution process of religion. The evolution of religion, human need and various forms of expression for emancipation is a vast subject.

Protectionism happens when one lacks substance to stay strong despite the typhoon of changing times. Protectionism is a sign of insecurity. It happens when one is aware they cannot last due to lack of valid basis.

More often than,its natural for man to be polygamous than women.But,women too are governed by bodily needs.Just becoz she becomes a widow at young age,does not prevent her to harbor physical intimacy with a man.Coming to grips with this fundamental truth,was flawed with indian men as a whole.When a man has many physical intimacies with many women=he becomes a stud.But when a woman does have multiple physical intimacies with very many partners=she becomes a slut!!!These are ways our society function in India,even today as i write this....

Our society did not always function like this. Women in the past could choose to have a child without a marriage. She could choose to have more than one partner. Loyalty was high. At the same time acceptance level for instances like those was also high. A woman was not considered different from a man. Men and women were not judged with different yardsticks. Destiny was not judged. The designer of destiny was not judged.

Degradation of women started before muslims and christians came to India. We need to ask since when did we the society start treating women so badly, and why did we do it. Societies that worshipped mother as divine pay bride price even to this day: http://koraput.nic.in/culture/culture.htm When tribes are/were like that, its amazing to think that they are classified as socially backward while feudal castes that treat women as inferior to men are considered socially forward..strange are the ways of the world.

A sanyasi sees every woman as a mother. If a sanyasi cannot see the divine mother he worships on a daily basis in every woman, does it mean he does not believe the divine mother to be omnipresent? Is it not a betrayal to mother Sharada ?

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Contd from my previous post...

Shasthras are principles which hold good for eternity... customs and traditions are different in that they evolve over time and sometimes change....

That is why even though our basic scriptures, ie., the vedas upanishads etc are the basis, the evolving practices based on them vary from group to group, and between geographies...

The basic question is - what constitutes the sin or theetu...? Is it the state of widowhood, the individual because of widowhood or the individual itself?

Are widowers an exception? Are widows who have remarried an exception?

I am of the category who respects our shasthras, and I agree with those principles which have an underlying logic in them. I also respect those who abide by shasthras completely, irrespective of whether they see the logic in them or not...

Maybe things were perceived differently in olden times... but should we not know the reasons for them to follow? Also, I admit that it might be impossible to know the reasons for all of them, considering our limited knowledge...

But there are these nagging questions which if solved, would at least pacify the mind with respect to the shasthras...

I quote from the english version of the Sankshepa Dharma Shasthram (Shri Ramachander has provided it in another thread)... under Sthri Dharmam:

9.Vyasa:-
When her husband dies a woman becomes a widow. If she strictly follows the duties of a widow, she can attain comfort with her husband in the next world.

Widows should cut their hair.. If she ties her hair, her husband in heaven will suffer.

She should take meals only once.

She should not use scents. She could offer oblations to her husband daily using Gingelly and Durba grass

She should worship Lord Vishnu daily. She should imagine that her husband is Vishnu. A widow who observes all this would live comfortably.

Based on the above, if a widow does not cut her hair, then it is a sin as her husband, if in heaven, would suffer... (forget about hell... as he would be suffering anyway).

I have the tamil book with me; the word used is "visarjanam"... ie., removal of hair...

So, perhaps the widow who has not removed her hair is a sinner in the above context... maybe the reason why the acharya refused to see widows... or fasted if he saw one?

If one goes through the entire "Sthri Dharmam", after marriage, the husband is God, and no other fasting or prayer is necessary for a wife... that is probably why she has to forego all things of the world if her living god dies...

But again, in the same book, there is a "Sanyasi Dharmam", which does not say that sanyasis should not look at widows!!!

Even in the prayaschittham section, it does not say anything of sanyasis seeing widows... but then, one should have a look at what kinds of sins are there; the list is quite exhaustive!!!! After reading this, it would be crystal clear, that 95% of today's people (among hindus) are sinners...

The question, then is "If the acharya can see such sinners, then why not widows?"

 

[s007bala]

re

S S

Contd from my previous post...

Shasthras are principles which hold good for eternity... customs and traditions are different in that they evolve over time and sometimes change....

Custom's & traditions emanate from interpretation of Sansmkritam texts on various topics in Sanathana Dharma.Therefore the interpretation of Samskritam texts by learned acharyas only hold true & good,isn't it?

That is why even though our basic scriptures, ie., the vedas upanishads etc are the basis, the evolving practices based on them vary from group to group, and between geographies...

Absolutely correct.

The basic question is - what constitutes the sin or theetu...? Is it the state of widowhood, the individual because of widowhood or the individual itself?

Widowhood as perceived in our society in the english rule is different from the rule of our forefathers who ruled without any abrahamic faiths interpretations of what is good and what is bad in society.People changed becoz they will be punished by abhrahamic faith rulers,so very many things got interpretated in very many ways,to avoid punishment.So,our customs & traditions got changed too.

Are widowers an exception? Are widows who have remarried an exception?

Women who had brought enuff dowry and had enuff sense to take care of themselves by being assertive & vocal,got away with their ways despite losing a husband.A minority sectional view of widowhood ought not to pro-scribe,the state of affairs of widows.There are so many widows who actually tonsured their hair,not wearing bras,....etc wore madisaara pudavai and listened to their gurus directions and lived happily within a family too.Its only women who were widows,sad, and their immediate family who felt this system is horrible,decided to go against the guru.Very simply,all one has to do is,forget Mahaswamigal, move to a guru whose teachings are different,as KRS rightly pointed out to say Swami Vivekananda ji.Instead people are commenting about Mahaswamigals actions,which is very hurtful to me,as he personally was above such petty issues.

I am of the category who respects our shasthras, and I agree with those principles which have an underlying logic in them. I also respect those who abide by shasthras completely, irrespective of whether they see the logic in them or not...

Cool,thats great.

Maybe things were perceived differently in olden times... but should we not know the reasons for them to follow? Also, I admit that it might be impossible to know the reasons for all of them, considering our limited knowledge...

Yes.

But there are these nagging questions which if solved, would at least pacify the mind with respect to the shasthras...

There are umpteen number of samskrita texts with different doctrines of schools in India,as that is how it existed.Each region is a country by itself like europe.Unity in diversity.

I quote from the english version of the Sankshepa Dharma Shasthram (Shri Ramachander has provided it in another thread)... under Sthri Dharmam:

Based on the above, if a widow does not cut her hair, then it is a sin as her husband, if in heaven, would suffer... (forget about hell... as he would be suffering anyway).

I have the tamil book with me; the word used is "visarjanam"... ie., removal of hair...

What you fail to understand here is the fundamental problem about treatment of women itself by hindu men.Double standards to put it mildly.In fact our forefathers practiced a kind of Talibanism against women.

So, perhaps the widow who has not removed her hair is a sinner in the above context... maybe the reason why the acharya refused to see widows... or fasted if he saw one?

If one goes through the entire "Sthri Dharmam", after marriage, the husband is God, and no other fasting or prayer is necessary for a wife... that is probably why she has to forego all things of the world if her living god dies...

Sthri Dharamam is applicable equally to men & women,as i understand it.My grandfathers from maternal side as well as paternal side,both,re-married with two wives and children from such marriages,as i see here in USA.Becoz of deaths happening at relatively young age due to child birth of women.Men could do all kinds of things but poor women were subjected persecution of the worst lot.And my Mahaswamigal was sticking to sampradayams unlike HH JS of the same sampradayams.So,even in the same disciplic succession,the governance style and interpretation shastras variedly widely.

But again, in the same book, there is a "Sanyasi Dharmam", which does not say that sanyasis should not look at widows!!!

Prolly the samskritam book of Mahaswamigal says he should not see widows!!And he was following his book of disciplic succession.

Even in the prayaschittham section, it does not say anything of sanyasis seeing widows... but then, one should have a look at what kinds of sins are there; the list is quite exhaustive!!!! After reading this, it would be crystal clear, that 95% of today's people (among hindus) are sinners...

The question, then is "If the acharya can see such sinners, then why not widows?"

Why not? he not see widows,as per his shastraic book?So,thats a bummer right.

If one is able to realise his actions and justify it with a clear conscience,he himself is his/her guru for his self=self-realisation=advaitham=non-duality.

The Bhagavath Gita is a superb scripture for modern times.Every Sanathana Dharma believer should not only read & understand the purport but try to follow it.I do not believe in the concept of sin,heaven,hell,swarga lokam,naraka lokam.....etc becoz the consciousness which is encompassed in a 'deham' gets released as per one's action to take another 'deham' untill one realises his/her self is what's it all about.

sb

 

[vanavil]

I have got 'Deivathin Kural' vol. 1, 2 & 5 with me and read them. The following is from what I remember from it.

1) Paramacharya felt his role to be educating / advising people who seek him to live as per the shastras and to steer those who have veered away by plead, request, advise and also non-recognition/sulk/satyagraha? . I don't know the exact word for the last item.

2) He felt he does not have the authority to change the rules of shastras, make adjustments, move the goal post etc. according to changes in time, political climate. etc. He also felt if he has to do these like the law amendments of the political system, then there is no need for this matam and a head (Himself). Here he doesn't dwell much on the topic, But gives as example, the treatment meted out to widows, saying though it is unpalatable, shastras says so and if we want to live as per shastras, we have to abide by it.

Non-recognition/sulk/satyagraha tactics.

3) In his prime days, he felt city people don't follow aacharam like people in villages and said he won't visit cities until people followed aacharam, thinking they will follow atleast to make him visit their city, and for several years didn't visit. It didn't have any effect. So he relented.

4) He was against Varadakshinai (Dowry) and asked people who take or give it, not to use his or the Matam's name in Aasirwadham section of Marriage invitaition. No one bothered. People still do it.

5) He was against lavish weddings, and asked people who approached him to reduce their spending and with the savings conduct the weddings of their poorer relatives or friends. This also didn't work for long.

6) He was against people wearing silk and some time he had effected people going to see him taking care not to wear silk. This also didn't last long. People didn't care and went to see him in silk veshti & saris.

7) This is not in Deivathin Kural. But I guess like the above items he wanted the widows also to follow the shastras and wanted only those who followed it to see him, in order to encourage people to abide the shastras. I think he relented on this too, in his later years, as I read in KanchiForum.org. incident of him seeing a untonsured widow.

8) Regarding why the tonsuring practice, I can only infer from what he has said for men. (Or may be it is dealt with in the volumes I don't have). He was against men having western style cropped hair style and wanted all to sport tuft (kudumi), stating that as per shastras after bath squeezing the water out of the tuft to the earth quenches the Pithrukal's (Departed souls from the family) thirst (in Whichever Loka they are) and by not having a tuft we are not quenching their tuft.

This same reason was given by my Patti (Grandmother), but with respect to Sumangali women instead of men, when as a young boy, I queried her as to the way she looked different to other ladies. She said as she is not a Sumangali but a widow, the water from her hair falling on earth will increase their thirst (like drinking salt water). Hence she had tonsured her head.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

sb, the way I see it, you agree that the practice of tonsuring and the low status of women could be done away with... but seems that you dont like anybody questioning the stance of the acharya.... and hence probably your posts intend to endorse what he did...

btw, your post above kinda looks like you are arguing for my case....hoto:

Me, you see, am unlike you... I tend to question what I feel ought to be questioned, but within my own narrow perception... so here goes:

If his interpretation of shasthras (by his book or otherwise) showed things in their proper perspective, he could very well have explained it...

The fact that he saw men without kudumis is itself a sin, then, isnt it?

I dont question his preference to lead a life by the shasthras, but then, he softened on the menfolk... isnt that preferential? Or did his personal shasthra book say that menfolk are to be excused whatever they do? Shasthras are the same to everyone my friend... whether he be an acharya, a grihastha or a shudhra...

Once when Shri Adi Shankara was passing along a street with his disciples, they came across a chandala... and the acharya's disciples shooed him to move out of their guru's way... the chandala asked "Whom are you asking to move away? This body or this athma?"

A great realisation dawned on the acharya... when he realised the purport of the chandala's words...

The lesson is that, for a sanyasi all beings are the same (here comes the concept of advaitham)... Bhagvath Githa also says the same thing... until he realizes this and practices it, he is not a true sanyasi...

And hence, my friend, the acharyas mode was definitely selective, but he probably could not explain it, and neither could he let go of it... that seems to be the case...

A guru is one who explains, leads and guides... and certainly being mysterious is not one of them... and most certainly not by resorting to a selective adoption of the shasthras...

Regards

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

I would like to quote one incident from Shri Ramanujachara's life:

Shri Ramanujacharya was initiated into the mysteries of the Ashtakshari Mantra (OM NAMO NARAAYANAYA!!) by Goshti Purnacharya '. At the time of the upadesa the Guru told him that the Mantra is very powerful and is capable of breaking loose the fetters of Karma of any individual who chants the Mantra. The Guru also wrested a promise from him that he would not reveal the import of the Mantra indiscreetly to all and sundry. He also threatened Ramanuja that in case he broke his promise he would go to hell.

The next day Ramanuja collected all the people of the village before the village temple and preached to them the hidden meaning of the Mantra. Goshtispurnacharya came to know of this and Ramanuja was informed of the impending consequences of this impudence. Ramanuja replied thus: " having learnt the secrets of the Mantra all of these people will attain Moksha after this birth - what if I alone go to hell in the process." The Guru was so impressed by this logic that he not only pardoned Ramanuja but also actually acknowledged to be his real Guru.

Anyway, I would not want to go to an extreme in speaking out loud against any acharya's chosen life or principles... I rest my case here.

 

[s007bala]

re

sb, the way I see it, you agree that the practice of tonsuring and the low status of women could be done away with... but seems that you dont like anybody questioning the stance of the acharya.... and hence probably your posts intend to endorse what he did...

S S everyone has a right to question Mahaswamigal and the Mahaswamigal has answered each and every questions with logic.Its my inability to write properly on behalf of defending the great Mahaswamigal,fondly called by us folks as 'nadamadum deivam'.

btw, your post above kinda looks like you are arguing for my case....hoto:

Me, you see, am unlike you... I tend to question what I feel ought to be questioned, but within my own narrow perception... so here goes:

Debating is what we are doing,nothing personal against you or me.I am trying to defend achaaryals actions from my perspective and win hearts in the bargain.Obviously i am doing a sham job .

If his interpretation of shasthras (by his book or otherwise) showed things in their proper perspective, he could very well have explained it...

The fact that he saw men without kudumis is itself a sin, then, isnt it?

I dont question his preference to lead a life by the shasthras, but then, he softened on the menfolk... isnt that preferential? Or did his personal shasthra book say that menfolk are to be excused whatever they do? Shasthras are the same to everyone my friend... whether he be an acharya, a grihastha or a shudhra...

Actually in the thread advaitham,i have given links for people to read the Mahaswamigals books and comprehend themselves,instead of a dimwit like me trying to explain,on the contrary i have only confused people owing to my poor explaining skills

And hence, my friend, the acharyas mode was definitely selective, but he probably could not explain it, and neither could he let go of it... that seems to be the case...

A guru is one who explains, leads and guides... and certainly being mysterious is not one of them... and most certainly not by resorting to a selective adoption of the shasthras...

Regards

I am sure Mahaswami, from your perspective was unable to explain despite you having read his entire written works.:usa2:I guess thats why vishistadvaita of Ramanujachaaryal is far more appealing to you.Good.All schools finally lead to god,whichever one may choose or any achaaryal that they choose.

sb

 

[s007bala]

s s

>>Anyway, I would not want to go to an extreme in speaking out loud against any acharya's chosen life or principles... I rest my case here. <<

How sweet of you!Despite shri Ramunaachaaryal's superlative explanation,Vaishnavas have many sub-divisions or sub-sects like smartas=which proves diverse opinion with a set of logic,can create n-number of schools based on certain parameters of darshanas.I too rest my case.Thanks.

sb

 

[s007bala]

vanavil

Thanks a lot,especially about Patti's explanation.My kollu patti did as per shastras explained by Mahaswamigal.

sb

 

[palindrome]

Before Sri Adi Shankara, the monastic traditions of sanatana dharma were predominently based on the dasanami (ekadandi) sampradaya and the tridandi sampradaya.

It can be said that the dasanamis were formed or were greatly influenced in their practices in the upanishadic age. The tantric age (considered older than upanishadic age) also influenced them profundly though it created rebels that struck out their own path such as Nath sampradaya. However, the ekadandis and tridandis are said to be following the vedic path since ancient times.

Anyone could seek brahmacharyam under any of the ten ordained names of the dasanami tradition: http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar4.html The ten ordained names of the dasanamis are: bharati, sarasvati, sagara, tirtha, puri, asrama, giri, parvata, aranya and vana. These sampradayas also have titles such as avadhoota and paramahansa, given to signify the attainment of spiritual states.

Adi Sankara organized the Dasanami sampradaya (organized, not founded) and established four mathas - at Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka and Jyotirmath. It can be said that smartaism became derived or was based on the older dasanami tradition.

Adi Shankara had organized the system in such a way that these 10 dasa nami names were to be distributed among the four mathas. But in reality the dasanamis stuck out on their own without being attached to any of the mathas, and the existence of the mathas themselves have come to depend on other factors over time.

After the establishment of the mathas, a time period of resurgence followed. Vedic schools of thought were resurrected. Some puranas were written during this period. Buddhism had already dwindled. During this time the interpretation of scriptures seems to have undergone a massive change to mean brahminhood by birth. It was interpreted that way possibly so that the traditions will atleast stay alive during a time when there were no takers for it.

Some scriptures were also misinterpreted or interpolated during this time to enable some to earn a living and/or have a higher or better position in the social structure (since bhiksha giving had supposedly dwindled, the survival of the traditions itself was in a state of question mark). Apparently various people moved in and out of the brahminhood system (takers and quitters). Therefore interpolations cannot be blamed on anyone. Those that could not keep their sustenence going at this time could have very well moved on to other forms of livelihood.

The Indian during this time period was in want of wealth. This was before the onslaught of invading islamic forces. So why was fluid wealth as sparable coins lacking amongst the masses during this period? What was wrong with the academic system during this time period? One can call this period as a time of economic depression.

Despite any change, the ekadandis and tridandis continue to follow the vedic system till date. They practice all that is prescribed in the shastras. Their curriculum includes the study of both the shrutis and smrithis as well as all other hindu literature. The Ekadandis appear to be very widespread since they admit anyone.

The manner in which the sanyasa traditions have remained untouched by the vagaries of time can make one say that sanatana has always remained eternal. They will remain eternal despite any controversies in mutts, certain actions of a few religious leaders, interpretation of scriptures, anything.

It wud have been a great wish and hope that the head of a mutt would have set an example as a leader for others to follow. And this from a peetham that is founded on the feminine principle would have been great. However, there is a larger destiny deciding these things, we know not its way of functioning itself; and therefore we are perhaps not judge anything.

 

[malgova.mango]

I would like to quote one incident from Shri Ramanujachara's life:



Anyway, I would not want to go to an extreme in speaking out loud against any acharya's chosen life or principles... I rest my case here.

Kekaravan kenaiyanna keppai'lla nai vadiyumam - kelivi pattirukkelo.

manthram kal , mathi mukkal - kelvi pattathillaiyo?

 

[malgova.mango]

VANAVIL JI!


Good post by you.

Thanks

 

[palindrome]

He felt he does not have the authority to change the rules of shastras, make adjustments, move the goal post etc. according to changes in time, political climate. etc. He also felt if he has to do these like the law amendments of the political system, then there is no need for this matam and a head (Himself). Here he doesn't dwell much on the topic, But gives as example, the treatment meted out to widows, saying though it is unpalatable, shastras says so and if we want to live as per shastras, we have to abide by it.

Shastras themselves are perhaps not changeable. But their interpretation has been different at different points of time. Maybe Krishna and Shiva are considered Gods for the very nature of the change they established. Maybe only God can change?

Thank you for informing that Paramacharya did see a untonsured widow. That is indeed very good to hear.

 

[malgova.mango]

I see the discussions are going way over my simple head!!!
However, Seshadri, excellent question! (see below!). Why didn't I think of that?
I would love to see the explanation for this!!


[Seshadri Subramaniam - Just a small clarification needed - did the acharya see kumaris or sumangalis? If he did, and if that did not cast a blemish on his Vratham, or did not trouble his "living model" life-style, how would a widow be the cause??? What even a kumari or a sumangali could not do, how would a widow???]

SF!

There are many many things above our simple head. Isn't it?

SS!

ennodu chirrarivikku ettalaiye...

BTW ... on your "that did not cast a blemish on his Vratham" ..

I think you got it ULTA it is nothing to do with HH image... it is out of Karunyam, care , same like our parents leading a disciplined life it is not because for their image.. it is out of repsonsiblity , care, awareness that any ill-disciplined action from them will influence their progenies , it is in that sense.

etho en chitrarivukku ettinathu.... summa vittu parthen avallavuthaan

oruvellai - avallukku protection erukkarthanallaio?

See a Kumari will be given to bramhachari by their parents ,they wont give to a sanyasi, as for Sumangali the question didn't arise at all. So a Sanyasi's Sanyasam is not in danger by both of them. So there is no problem in giving dharshan to them. Also a sanyasi gets Bhiksha from a sumangali or kumari .

does this makes any sense?

 

[malgova.mango]

ss

ramanujaacharayal periya pesagu pannitar. moksham avarkku etta kanni aiduthu , avalla sutthi eruthavallukkum appadiye poiduthu....

krishna paramatma geethaila advaitham teach pannerukkarnnu pandithal ellarum sollara- appadi erukkappa advaithamnnu onume ellainngarathullernthu avar sayam velluthuduthu...

karunai mattharam erunthu enna pannarthu?

konjam periava - (krishna parmathma avaria veeda periyavar thane, kamba naatazhvar periavar illaiyo)sollartahellam maruthhu pesalamo?

enakennavo avar pesagitarrnu thitta vattama thonarthu...

kovichukatheyum umakitta irukkara antharyami than enna eppadi ezhutha vaikkirar.

sinthikkavaum - seerram vendam