Deergha Sumangali Bhava

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

.... In all areas of knowledge and research--worldly and spiritual--the majority opinion does rule the roost, and the minority opinion, where it is unprejudiced, can only hope that its time will come.

Thank you for your response Saidevo, I appreciate you taking my concerns seriously. I have to say, I find your explanations unsatisfactory to me, but that is just me.

best regards brother ....

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,

I have a lot of respect for your erudition. I write this only as a counter to your observation about Vivaaha mantras, kavacham literature and Thiruppukazh in this thread. I have criticised only the ideas after toning down the language as far as possible. I have absolutely no intention to hurt any one.

Dear Shri Raju,

Thank you for your kind words. Let me state, at the very outset, that I do not view "religion" in the same way as perhaps Shri Saidevo, Shri KRS, yourself and many others do; and I am aware that when it comes to finer details about the religious "rights & wrongs" there could be sharp differences among you people also. I feel much of what is there in the Hinduism of today is actually a stain on the religion itself and I found that in this forum discussions were going on in May 2010 about puruṣasūktam, which gave me the impression that my pov on hinduism may be permitted here. That is the reason why I started participating and am still continuing. It is my feeling that tabras have almost completely lost their knowledge of the meaning of their mantras, scriptures, etc., because of their steady alienation from sanskrit. They pretend to be very religious if certain superficial recitations, rites, etc., are done and a façade is put that one is a great "'āstika". Many things are omitted, changed according to convenience, etc., but these are not "conscious reforms" but "ignorant steps for pure convenience". My desire is that tabras get to know more and more about what exactly our scriptures and other religious texts actually say and make them more aware, so that instead of just blindly following what the conformist orthodoxy, which hates any rational questioning, tells them.

It is quite possible that my views have become uncomfortable to some. I consider such a tendency to be either nascent fanaticism, or else a "reaction" inasmuch as it is felt by some people that any non-conformist view should be challenged as a part of one's real religious duty. So long as such challenge is based on logic, it is welcome.

But let me tell here that, at least in this thread I did not start with any "criticism" of our mantras/religious practices. Smt. Renuka Kartikeyan (RK) in post # 3 stated as under:

"As far as I know in Non Brahmin weddings priest recites the mantra( I remember priest reciting at my wedding and i joked with husband saying priest "married" the bride.hehehheh)..I am not familiar with Brahmin Weddings..does the groom recite this mantra or does the priest recite it..feedback please ..would like to know.."

I replied (post # 6) inter alia that there are more explicit mantras in a brahman marriage and added "This and some other explicit “mantras” are also there. The priest utters these, but the groom may blissfully play the role of silent observer. So, it is for the Brahman unmarried boys to decide what each one should do."

This was in support of RK's suggestion that there should be a one-week training course for boys before the marriage so that they know the purport of the mantras and recite appropriately. Thus far everything was OK (at least I feel so because there was no response from you in the same tone as the present one.). Then Shri Saidevo in post #28 wanted my specific comments on the points raised therein. In that one of his views was as follows:

"I think the explicit nuptial mantras in the vivAha ceremony could be understood in such contexts as above. It seems to me that the explicit references to the genital parts of the couple and the seeking of devAnugraha for their conjugal acts are like the kavacha mantras. Just as we chant the lines in a hymn like the skanda ShaShTi kavacham that refer to body parts, blissfully and without ignorance, it is possible to read between and behind the lines of the vivAha mantras that are explicit. "

I do not agree that such explicit mantras/kavacams etc., have to be accepted because these are being blindly accepted by one section of the people who are more likely to be ignorant. That way the practice of "Satee" was also endorsed at one time by a large number of people; was it not given up as undesirable? Animal sacrifices were the norm in vedic yagas even till 1950’s or so. Has it not been stopped now? The kavacams seek protection from certain deity, as you say, but there has to be some basic logic even in regard to that. In some of our rites (apara karma, for example) the mantras have to be changed according to the gender of the deceased person; our rishis obviously did not say that we may jolly well recite whatever we wanted if only there is the ability to recite them "blissfully and without ignorance". Whereas at every step the examples set by our ancient rishis and the rules laid down by them are extolled by the religious-minded, when it comes to such blind practices like reciting the KSK, it is not even felt necessary to say that males should chant like this while females should chant the alternative lines. This is exactly what I recommend to believers, though personally I don't chant it, being myself an agnostic.

I find that there is a common thread of sarcasm and a lot of jeering and sneering in your posts about the Vivaha mantras as well as the kavachams and Thiruppukazh. While any one would admit that the rituals have undergone a lot of changes due to various strong reasons like economy, time and logistics there is no justification to be so dismissive and frivolous about the purport of the mantras or to be so critical about the kavachams and Thiruppukazh.

This is your perception for which I don't think I have to reply. I did not write with any such intention.

Our elders who belonged to another time, were completely free with expression of matters pertaining to physiology and sex. The vast collection of literature in Tamil and Sanskrit adequately stand as testimony to this fact. Luckily they had not gone through the Victorian prudish outlook and mores which was just unnatural and alien to the native culture. They were not ashamed of their physiological assets and had no qualms whatsoever about speaking about them in their literature-with beautiful imageries as well as in stark direct terms. They considered them as part of existence and hence boldly carved them in immortal granite statues and murals of temples. They considered procreation itself as a yajna done for the welfare of the humanity. Hence they have written about procreation in very great details (including physiological aspects of it) unabashedly.

I do not agree, unless you include the kings and rulers and the poets who caused such "beautiful imageries in literature and carvings" also as our vedic law-givers. On the contrary you will find that the brahmanical teachings did not envisage the teaching of Vatsyayana's Kamasutra or its predecessors Gonikaputra and others, nor do any of our mutts teach any of these texts; on the contrary a student is supposed to be a very strict brahmcacārī and so it is doubtful if our ṛṣis were not prudish.

On the contrary the "sthapati" who at an early time enjoyed a higher caste status got demoted over time to "sudra"; may be the brahmanic mind did not accept the "beautiful imageries" which you refer to and their actual sculptors. Any "sthapati" who is detailed for sculpting an idol for installation in a temple, has to first observe 41 days' vratam and observe strict continence and live around the sculpting area only - away from his family. So I do not think the mindset of medieval brahmans was very lenient to overt portrayal of sringaara rasa.

Can you tell me where, in the mantra parts of our scriptures, our ancients "have written about procreation in very great details (including physiological aspects of it) unabashedly"? I will like to learn.

In their higher search for God and Truth they considered all distractions as impediments and this included excess indulgence. While speaking about their search if they have spoken in detail about the impediments what is wrong with it?

May I know the basis for your above observation? And in what way has the "impediments" spoken of in detail in the mantras, I presume, helped in the search for god/truth?

For some of us who are used to the Victorian mores these may look or sound like indulgence. If it appears so to you the problem lies elsewhere.

You have also said “I am, somehow, reminded of the "indulgences" in medieval catholic christianity”.

You said it! You are sure aware of what followed in the Victorian period. Even normal indulgences were pushed to the privacy and anonimity of darkness in the night and all beauty was carefully pushed behind thick purdah. Our ancestors had a better vision for us.

Shri Raju, I feel you are indulging in giving different shapes to "indulgence", the word itself. It means "inability to resist the gratification of whims and desires, excessive gratification, etc." So, how can there be "normal indulgence" vis-a-vis abnormal indulgence? Indulgence itself is considered bad as per later hindu beliefs, though the vedic vivāha mantras iclude this one also:

imām tvamindra mīdhvassuputrām subhagām kuru | daśāsyām putrān adhehi patim ekādaśam kṛdhi || (O indra, thou art bountiful. Make this girl have good children and prosperity. Bestow on her ten good children and make the husband the eleventh.) It also prays "aśūnyopasthā jīvatāmastu mātā" (May she ever have children on her lap.) It is thus clear that the vedic ṛṣis did not at all consider that sex was an obstruction to their way of life.

"indulgences" in medieval catholic christianity has nothing to do with what you probably think. I give just some relevant paras from
Is the catholic church selling indulgences for money? - Yahoo! Answers

"In the late thirteenth century, the church came up with the idea of indulgences. In the spiritual life of sinners, indulgences function exactly the same way money functions in their economic life. Here's the logic: since the expiation of sin involves temporal punishment and this temporal punishment involves the doing of good works, why not substitute someone else's good works for the good works you're required to do? Why not pay someone else to do the good works demanded of you as temporal punishment?

Church officials argued that clergy were doing more good works then they needed to; they had, you might say, more than good works in their spiritual accounts than they had sins to pay for. Why not sell them? So selling the good works of the church was precisely what the church did. With the approval of the pope, individual bishops could sell indulgences which more or less paid off any temporal punishment or good works that the individual believer (had to do as expiation therefore) had accumulated in the previous year. It substituted the good works of the Catholic clergy for the good works required of the individual believer. Proof of this substitution was in the indulgence itself, which was a piece of paper, like a piece of money or a check, that certified that the good works of the clergy had paid off the "good works debt" of the individual believer.

Inspired by the need to raise money, indulgences reproduced the very logic of money. In place of the real thing (good works), indulgences substituted a completely valueless piece of paper. The only reason this worked is because everybody accepted this to be a valid substitution, just like everybody accepts money as a substitution for things that have value."

These “tickets” to heaven marked the nadir of the Catholic religion and I said I am reminded of a similar state of affairs in Hinduism now.

To me as well as to any believer who reads them, it appears the kavacham literature is an appeal to the ishta deivam(personal godhead/devatha) to protect the individual’s body from attack and harm and in making that appeal the bard has done a very detailed and thorough job. What is your objection? What is so ‘ludicrous’ about it? What the poet has written about is only what exists there. He has not added anything funny or obscene there. Or is it your case that human being is a funny looking obscene creature? A human being, whether man or woman, need not be ashamed about its genitals and need not be furtive, secretive or defensive when speaking about it. The problem is with the mindset-the mind that reads it and interprets it in a particular way because of the wrong perception or the lack of perception, accumulated prejudices, and the wrong classification of what is serene and what is obscene –acquired from external sources by education.

I have already given my comments citing our apara kriya mantras as an example and the need for specifying the versions to be chanted by the 'karta' for departed males and females. While I find the mindset behind these ‘kavacas’ really ludicrous, especially when viewed aide by side of grandiose claims like “aham brahmaasmi”, everything is Brahman, this world is unreal, Vishnu is the only god and all that, why at all go on requesting different deities (or different aspects of the same deity) to protect or be stationed – as in some kavacas – in different parts of the body. To me this reeks of non-belief in the advaita or real bhakti which is supposed to be the two main lines in Hinduism currently. Kavacas, being tantric in origin, are in truth, unacceptable to vedic Hinduism IMHO. (I include Sivakavacam also in this category, but it is much better composed, of course.)

The Thiruppukazh that you have quoted is explicit about the kind of spell that Arunagirinathar was under. This is nothing when compared to some of the more explicit poetry in Bhakthi as well as Sangam Literature. Thiruppukazh is a religious text and the poet can only go against the impediments to God-realization. I doubt whether the poet has ever said anywhere that the women of easy virtue are responsible for ‘all’ evils in this world. The poet’s argument is against the indulgence in sensual pleasures and in that context he explains how he was caught in the web of a woman of easy virtue. Your sympathy for the women is at a different level and has no relevance to the subject in focus.

IMO, Arunagiri as a real “sinner-turned-Saint” should not have written as if the prostitutes are the major cause of all evils - this he repeats in many thiruppukazhs - and blaming those women squarely as though they did not allow him to lead his brahmanic way of life and help his sister; as if these women barged into his house, dragged him by his hands and compelled him to engage with them. I find this unbecoming of even an ordinary fellow who might turn a new leaf in his life, much more so in the case of one who is supposed to be a saint. Even the example of tiruppukazh I have cited, reveals a mind actively lingering on the very minute details of whatever his experience of prostitutes were. And considering the hagiography of Arunagirinathar that all thiruppukazhs were composed while standing before the sanctum sanctorum of some Murugan temple, I definitely view these as not good examples of a mind which was refined, but one which was incapable of the tendency to continue dwelling on the very things he likes to detail. If Valmiki had, in the same way, interspersed his Ramayana, with detailed acounts of the sinful ways of his past life, what would have been the result? I am told that even among the Vaishnava alwars there was one reformed robber; did he write in a similar vein? I therefore am of the confirmed view that despite the rhythmic beauty of thiruppukazhs, these rank low as devotionals. The very fact that many such explicit thiruppukazhs are not sung publicly only goes to prove that the public at large holds prudish views, despite whatever you or Saidevo try to establish here.

You have said “The sad part is that our religious belief system has gone down to its nadir, that any constructive, logical criticism is being viewed as bad and unholy”.

Logical criticism can not fly of the handle. It has to be firmly tied to the present and subject in hand. Interpreting ancient literature and religious works with a dictionary in hand is not logical criticism. The overall context is important. An understanding of the circumstances is also essential. And in what way is this criticism constructive? Criticism is always welcome. It is the only way to acquire knowledge and move forward. But this is something else. The believers are not so scared of reasoned criticism. They can take it in their stride and move.

I am very much logical and "firmly tied to the present” and the subject under discussion. That is why I am strongly arguing for changes to the ancient religious works in accordance with the norms of the present times. (I have already cited examples such as Satee, animal sacrifices, etc.). This criticism is constructive because it suggests changes.

I suppose you consider yourself to be a "believer". If so your "toned down criticism" itself is evidence that believers get unsettled by criticism and cannot just "take it in their stride and move".

Last but not least I reproduce a few extracts from the book "Indu matam enge pokiratu" by Agnihotram Ramanuja Thathachariar.
"[FONT=&quot]சரி[/FONT][FONT=&quot], திருமணத்தில் வாத்யார்கள் ஓதும் முரண்பாடான மந்த்ரங்களுக்கு மேலும் உதாரணம் சொல்கிறேன் என [/FONT][FONT=&quot]போ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ன அத்யாயத்தில் சொல்லியிருந்தேனல்லவா[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]அத்தகைய ஒரு மந்த்ரத்தைப் பாருங்கள்[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]தாம்பூஷஞ்சிவதமாமேரயஸ்வ
யஸ்யாம்பீஜம்மநுஷ்யாவபந்தி[FONT=&quot] |[/FONT]
யாநஊரூஉசதீவிச்ரயாதே
யஸ்யாம்உஷ்ந்தஃப்ரஹராமசேபம்[FONT=&quot] ||"[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]இது வேதத்தில் சொல்லப்பட்ட மந்த்ரம். இதை கல்யாண மேடையிலே பெண்ணையும் மாப்பிள்ளையையும் உட்கார்த்திவைத்து சத்தமாக சொல்கிறார் வாத்யார். இந்த மந்த்ரத்தின் அர்த்தம் புரிந்தால் ... அந்த வாத்யாரை நீங்கள் வாத்சாயனர் என்று தான் அழைப்பீர்கள்.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]... இதை ஏன் சொல்கிறேன் என்றால் ...வாத்யார்கள் சடங்குகள் என்ற பெயரில் என்ன அர்த்தம் என்றே தெரியாமல் ... பல மந்த்ரங்களை உச்சரித்து வருகிறார்கள் என்பதை சுட்டிக் காட்டத்தான்.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]இதுபோல் இன்னொரு மந்த்ரம்.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"விஷ்ணுர் யோனிம் கல்ப்பயது[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]த்வஷ்டா ரூபாணி பிக்ம்சது[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ஆஸிஞது ப்ரஜாபதிஃ[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]தாதா கர்ப்பம் ததாது தே..."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]இதன் அர்த்தம் ... இன்னும் ஆபாசம் !...[/FONT]

I am not giving the meaning here because I do not want yet another round of the same exercise.

 

[Nara]

..... My desire is that tabras get to know more and more about what exactly our scriptures and other religious texts actually say and make them more aware, so that instead of just blindly following what the conformist orthodoxy, which hates any rational questioning, tells them.

Dear Shri Sangom, I appreciate your methodical rebuttal of criticisms leveled. Most of the forums in this site are dedicated to extolling the great Hindu darma, shlokas, philosophy and what not. Contrarian views are allowed only in 2 or 3 forums, and I think it is unreasonable to demand that even here the majority sentiment must rule.

BTW, the azhvar you are referring to is Thirumangai Azhvar. References to his past life are found only in the very first 10 verses of Periya Thirumozhi. These 10 are absolutely the very best of self-deprecating verses found anywhere. He places the blame for his unruly ways of the past squarely on himself.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

shri nara

I have never seen references to anus......

when my own daughter and son were growing up as toddlers,i experianced their immediate response to be cleaned as soon as they had cleared themselves.so when the body is rejecting waste products through a particular orifice ,its understood sub-consciously how important that orifice is,for removal of waste product.just imagine,if that particular orifice goes on a strike aka tools down,geez all other organs in the body will be simply in a state of depression and soon the body will faint and die.

victorian prudishness or our rishis being prudish in the past may have some reason behind it,at that time.i can say or write with confidence,rishi bharadwaja & his dharma pathni shrimathi susheela thayar,have good descendants,who happily pro-create ever after,as i am a blooming exampe .

deergha sumangali bhava was what my mother wanted,but my dad got the blessing and he won the race as lord yama took him first.appa was always winner in bhu-lokam and amma always let him win .

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Yes, it is always how you take it. Let me add how would anybody view the story of Dattareya Avatar. You can talk whichever way you are inclined to. For that matter there are people to support the Washerman's question. People could ridicule the story of Pandavas. There are people who are not interested in reading Ramayana proper, but who openly or slyly read "Kambarasam". It is all in the inclination. A coin has 2 sides but a ball has many as you choose.

 

[Maniya]

Personally, I think there is nothing wrong in the shlokas. It is our perverted mind and our obsession with sex and the guilt feeling attached with sex that makes us see obsenity in the shlokas.

The saint only wishes that Muruaga protect all the organs of his devotees. All organs including the sex organs can be harmed due to disease or physical assault. So he prays to Lord Muruga that he take care of his devotees' personal organs and keep them free from disease or other harms. I see no obscenity here. The saint is definitely not masquerading or couching his sexual inclinations as Mr. Sangom critcises. We all know how difficult it is to be free from sexual thoughts. So the saint at long last realises the enormity of his sins and is free from sex-hunger totally through the blessings of Muruga. The anus is an important organ of evacuation. If it suffers, then our whole system suffers. Constipation is such a curse that it can lead to cancer even. So praying for its protection from Muruga is not at all wrong. Nor there is any obscenity in it.

I have nothing against Mr. Sangom being an agnost. But his questioning our saints' divinity just because they have mentioned something erotic in their shlokas or our marriage mantras being obscene cannot be justified. Perhaps he needs some soul searching. The problem is with his thinking and not with our saints or our scriptures. I am not saying i am a saint. Even i am affected by sex and anything related to it. But i am an ordinary mortal. That does not mean the saints were also ordinary mortals and need not be praised. To compare ourselves with realised saints is like calling the grapes sour.

 

[Maniya]

Even in Valmiki ramayana, Valmiki has described Sita's beauty in a very erotic manner through Ravana in the Panchavati scene. That does not rob the Ramayana of its richness.
--------------------------
Ramayana is nothing but the story of our struggle to keep our senses in tact.

If one succumbs to lust one is ruined. Ravana despite all his merits could not accept nothing short of Sita as his wife. He knew he was wrong in coveting another man's wife. But his lust was too strong to overpowered by Gyaan. He had to pay the price.

He tried all his villainy and sorcery to lure Sita into submission. But Sita did not relent. Ravana was cowardly. He only merely threatened her. He dare not touch her. He knew he would be burnt to ashes. But because of his lust, he lost all his virtues and no advice not even his conscience could lift him up from the morass of vice.

our lust is so strong that it deludes us despite our brilliance and merits.
---------------
And just because valmiki has used erotica to describe Sita's beauty, valmiki doesn't become impure or his sainthood can be questioned.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,
This is what I have to say in reply to your post #52 in this thread:

Thank you …. ……. I do not view "religion" in the same way as perhaps Shri Saidevo, Shri KRS, yourself and many others do; and I am aware that when it comes to finer details about the religious "rights & wrongs" there could be sharp differences among you people also.

Well Sir, if you are alluding to any particular denomination of Hindu religion that I follow as different from Sri Saidevo, KRS etc., it is not material to this discussion we are engaged in. I am clear in my mind that Hinduism has many denominations depending on how the scriptures are interpreted. Just as you can say a door is half-closed or half-open (both will be true) the interpretation never questions the basic concepts of the religion. And even the great Acharyas when they argued at length offered an alternative interpretation to the one they criticized as incorrect. I, with the benefit of exposure to the good and bad of various interpretations, do not sit in judgment of “rights” or “wrongs” of the particular interpretation. I grasp the essence of what is said and use it to understand the truth better. I do not know how you view the religion. I am interested in knowing because while you have been criticizing you have not been forthcoming with what you offer as alternative.

I feel much of what is there in the Hinduism of today is actually a stain on the religion itself and I found that in this forum discussions were going on in May 2010 about puruṣasūktam, which gave me the impression that my pov on hinduism may be permitted here. That is the reason why I started participating and am still continuing.

I am happy to discuss with you as this forum allows a good lot of freedom of expression and I come here looking for info and knowledge. The members too understand the subject under discussion well. Please continue to offer your views.

It is my feeling that tabras have almost completely lost their knowledge of the meaning of their mantras, scriptures, etc., because of their steady alienation from sanskrit. They pretend to be very religious if certain superficial recitations, rites, etc., are done and a façade is put that one is a great "'āstika".

It is true that TBs have moved away from Sanskrit and hence do not know the meaning of the many rituals and mantras which are part of their religious life. But I look at it from a different perspective. It is not that they pretend to be religious. They are religious though they do not know the meaning of the mantras. They have faith in their ancestors that whatever mantras they have prescribed for various occasions have a purpose. When faith is there, the need for meanings and hair-splitting interpretations become rather a burden and distraction. As you have argued there may be mantras which are ‘obscene’ in their meaning, but for the faithful he is happy reciting them because that is the way his elders had been doing it and he finds himself inadequate to question their wisdom. He is not ready to accept his ancestors as some kind of mischief making pranksters (as a member has ‘cleverly’ described in this forum). Even if you tell him the meaning, he may have a hearty laugh but may not be willing to sacrifice the mantras. This is not peculiar to TBs alone. This reminds me of a funny ritual followed by the Knanaya Christian Community in Kerala (A small community that lives in the Kottayam District with their religious head living in Kozhencherry). Before the bride groom leaves for the church for the marriage ceremony the brother/step brother/cousin brother of the bride has to take the bridegroom aside, offer him a கோவணம் (loin cloth) and help the bridegroom wear it. In today’s world this may be objected to as an obscene ritual. But the faithful have retained this ritual as part of their marriage celebrations even today as it serves a purpose, though in a crude way.

Many things are omitted, changed according to convenience, etc., but these are not "conscious reforms" but "ignorant steps for pure convenience".

Here too I have a different perspective. The changes are due to force of circumstances than for convenience. If convenience is the main factor the elaborate rituals would have been altogether given up. The situations and circumstances have changed vastly because of that relentless and powerful alchemist called time. The effort of the faithful is to keep as much of the tradition as possible and carefully take changes but not at hurtling pace.

My desire is that tabras get to know more and more about what exactly our scriptures and other religious texts actually say and make them more aware, so that instead of just blindly following what the conformist orthodoxy, which hates any rational questioning, tells them.

It would indeed be very nice if all of us learn Sanskrit so that we understand the meaning of all the mantras but it is not practical or feasible. So we have to do with the satisfaction that the mantras have a purpose and purport which are for our welfare and chant them. If your ‘conformist orthodoxy’ includes people like me, I have to protest. We do encourage rational questioning by youngsters like we ourselves did in our time. But as we understood the value of tradition and culture and the necessity to keep our roots in tact, we expect our youngsters also to be understanding. Many of them do understand. Unending rational-questioning and demolishing of everything without building a better alternative is certainly not a solution.

It is quite possible that my views have become uncomfortable to some. I consider such a tendency to be either nascent fanaticism, or else a "reaction" inasmuch as it is felt by some people that any non-conformist view should be challenged as a part of one's real religious duty.

We all tend to label and typecast people who differ with our views because it then becomes easy to fill up the gaps in our understanding of them. Your views are your and many others’ views also. If I find them not conducive to the understanding of truth I come and probe further with my counters. I am fully aware that I will have to change my POV if I find your views acceptable. Fanatics do not waste their time in arguments. Conformist as well as non-conformist views are challenged with a view to understand the truth better and not to comply with any religious fatwa.

I do not agree that such explicit mantras/kavacams etc., have to be accepted because these are being blindly accepted by one section of the people who are more likely to be ignorant………………….felt necessary to say that males should chant like this while females should chant the alternative lines. This is exactly what I recommend to believers, though personally I don't chant it, being myself an agnostic.

When you seek the mercy of God and pray to him and plead with him to save you it is a state of mind in which many distinctions disappear. Thus an Azhwar can be a maid this moment, the mother of the maid next moment and can become a helping soul-mate another moment all in the same pathikam. So the male specific and female specific lines prescribed by you are not of much use to one who is filled with bhakthi and surrenders to God.It is a state in which the devotee says “நாஸ்தா தர்மே ந வசு நிசயே நைவ காமோப போகே , யத் யத் பவ்யம் பவது பகவன் பூர்வ கர்மானுரூபம் ஏதத் பிரார்த்யம் மம பஹுமதம் ஜன்ம ஜன்மாந்தரேபி, த்வத்பாதாம்போருக யுககதா நிச்சலா பக்திர் அஸ்து”. There is even a state in which one says simply “அஹம் மத் ரக்ஷண பரோ மத் ரக்ஷண பலம் ததா , ந மம ஸ்ரீபதேரேவ இத்யாத்மானம் நிக்ஷிபேத் புத: ”. It is a state in which the words themselves loose their meaning and where genders of grammar will stand!!

I do not agree, unless you include the kings and rulers and the poets who caused such "beautiful …… also as our vedic law-givers. On the contrary you will find that the brahmanical teachings did not envisage the teaching of Vatsyayana's Kamasutra or its predecessors Gonikaputra and others, nor do any of our mutts teach any of these texts; on the contrary a student is supposed to be a very strict brahmcacārī and so it is doubtful if our ṛṣis were not prudish.

I do not understand what you mean by the adjective ‘brahmanical’. In the absence of contrary evidence I take it that the ancient society was one monolith, the sum of whose parts made up the whole. There is no evidence to prove that one group drafted the laws for another group to follow and that this code making group made no other contribution to the society. AFAIK the ancient centres of learning were all centres of higher learning though many of them were teaching philosophy to the exclusion of other subjects. These rsis and Acharyas equipped the disciples with the methods of knowledge acquisition ( refer to தபோ ப்ரஹ்மேதி, ச தபோதப்யத, ச தபஸ் தப்த்வா etc) Every one had to develop his thinking faculties with the help from Acharyas. It was not a system of class-room spoon feeding. With the skills acquired the student was supposed to leave the Ashram and go on his own. If he needed knowledge that was available in Kamasutra he was free to read it and even learn it from a woman by practice after leaving the Ashram. Yes he was supposed to be a strict brahmachari as long as he was in the Ashram because that was a discipline he had to accept for joining the Ashram.

On the contrary the "sthapati" who at an early time enjoyed a higher caste status got demoted over time to "sudra"; may be the brahmanic mind did not accept the "beautiful imageries" which you refer to and their actual sculptors.

You are unable to resist the temptation to take pot shots at Brahmins accusing them of casteism. We have discussed this enough. For the record I would just say here just this much that I don’t believe a word of what you have said above because there is no literature or any other proof which would concur with your views. These accusations are just whimsical.

Can you tell me where, in the mantra parts of our scriptures, our ancients "have written about procreation in very great details (including physiological aspects of it) unabashedly"? I will like to learn.

I did not say anywhere that in the mantra parts it is said. The fact that Vatsyayana and Gonikaputra whom you referred to have written exclusively about these subjects in great details is what I meant.

In their higher search for God and Truth they considered all distractions as impediments and this included excess indulgence. While speaking about their search if they have spoken in detail about the impediments what is wrong with it?

This is what I said.

May I know the basis for your above observation? And in what way has the "impediments" spoken of in detail in the mantras, I presume, helped in the search for god/truth?

This is what you have asked. I do not understand what your point is. Please elaborate. Again I have to say it has nothing to do with mantras.

Shri Raju, I feel you are indulging in giving different shapes to "indulgence", the word itself. It means "inability to resist the gratification of whims and desires, excessive gratification, etc." So, how can there be "normal indulgence" vis-a-vis abnormal indulgence?

Yes. I know that indulgence means ‘to yield to the desire/inability to resist the gratification etc., I do not want to further elaborate on this lest we will have go ‘explicit’.

These “tickets” to heaven marked the nadir of the Catholic religion and I said I am reminded of a similar state of affairs in Hinduism now.

I do not get the similarities you are speaking about. Please elaborate.

While I find the mindset behind these ‘kavacas’ really ludicrous, especially when viewed aide by side of grandiose claims like “அஹம் பிரஹ்மாஸ்மி”,……. why at all go on requesting different deities…. to protect or be stationed – as in some kavacas – in different parts of the body. To me this reeks of non-belief in the advaita or real bhakti……. Kavacas, being tantric in origin, are in truth, unacceptable to vedic Hinduism IMHO.

There is nothing absurd or eccentric about the kavachas and they do not deserve this kind of a treatment. Kavacha chanting is at one level and “அஹம் பிரஹ்மாஸ்மி ” is at another level(Please note that I am not judgmental and am not using ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ here) . Among the faithful those who find ‘aham brahmasmi’ as revealing take it and others who find காக்க, காக்க of kavacham of immediate help take that. It is all about where you are pausing in your spiritual journey.

IMO, Arunagiri as a real “sinner-turned-Saint” should not have written as if the prostitutes are the major cause of all evils - this he repeats in many thiruppukazhs - and blaming those women squarely as though they did not allow him to lead his brahmanic way of life and help his sister; as if these women barged into his house, dragged him by his hands and compelled him to engage with them. I find this unbecoming of even an ordinary fellow who might turn a new leaf in his life, much more so in the case of one who is supposed to be a saint.

Arunagiri could speak only about what he experienced in his life. If he had spent a lot of his time with women and he felt sorry about it he could write only about it. There are many such instances in bhakti literature. Thondaradipodi Azhwar said துவர்த்த செவ்வாயினாற்கே துவக்கற துரிசனானேன் . And as you have already said Thirumangai Azhwar has written repeatedly in this vein. Arunagiri’s as well as Azhwars’ experiences could not be custom made to our requirements!!

If Valmiki had, in the same way, interspersed his Ramayana, with detailed acounts of the sinful ways of his past life, what would have been the result?

Arunagiri was seeking the mercy of God and was doing a penance whereas Valmiki was writing about the glory of God. This explains the difference.

I suppose you consider yourself to be a "believer". If so your "toned down criticism" itself is evidence that believers get unsettled by criticism and cannot just "take it in their stride and move".

As I have already said this is not the cry in agony of an unsettled believer but the forays of a mind searching for truth. As a believer I am on very firm ground and cool too.

Cheers.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Raju.

Kudos to you for the clarity of thought and felicity of expression in your reply! Every point you have made speaks of your matured outlook whose intent is reconciliation of the diversities and differences rather than blind criticism. May your IShTadevata bless you to keep up with such outlook and expression, which is the need of the hour.

 

[suraju06]

namaste Raju.

Kudos to you for the clarity of thought and felicity of expression in your reply! Every point you have made speaks of your matured outlook whose intent is reconciliation of the diversities and differences rather than blind criticism. May your IShTadevata bless you to keep up with such outlook and expression, which is the need of the hour.

Thank you Sir for the nice words of appreciation and the ஆசீர்வாதம்.

 

[sangom]

[FONT=&quot]Dear Shri Raju,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is in partial reply to your post # 58. I give [/FONT][FONT=&quot]below excerpts from some of your posts # 44, 58 and 50: [/FONT]

To me as well as to any believer who reads them, it appears the kavacham literature is an appeal to the ishta deivam(personal godhead/devatha) to protect the individual’s body from attack and harm and in making that appeal the bard has done a very detailed and thorough job. What is your objection? What is so ‘ludicrous’ about it? What the poet has written about is only what exists there. He has not added anything funny or obscene there. Or is it your case that human being is a funny looking obscene creature? A human being, whether man or woman, need not be ashamed about its genitals and need not be furtive, secretive or defensive when speaking about it. The problem is with the mindset-the mind that reads it and interprets it in a particular way because of the wrong perception or the lack of perception, accumulated prejudices, and the wrong classification of what is serene and what is obscene –acquired from external sources by education.
The Thiruppukazh that you have quoted is explicit about the kind of spell that Arunagirinathar was under. This is nothing when compared to some of the more explicit poetry in Bhakthi as well as Sangam Literature.

[FONT=&quot]Shri Raju, I feel you are indulging in giving different shapes to "indulgence", the word itself. It means "inability to resist the gratification of whims and desires, excessive gratification, etc." So, how can there be "normal indulgence" vis-a-vis abnormal indulgence?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yes. I know that indulgence means [/FONT][FONT=&quot]‘[/FONT][FONT=&quot]to yield to the desire/inability to resist the gratification etc., I do not want to further elaborate on this lest we will have go [/FONT][FONT=&quot]‘[/FONT][FONT=&quot]explicit[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

I have already once replied to this point which I recall here. I wrote the reply in Tamil and I give it here:

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]" எத்துணை முயன்று முயங்கினாலும் ஒன்றும் ஒன்றும், ஒன்றும் ஒன்றுமாகவே இருந்துவிடுகின்ற , இரண்டறக்கலத்தலாகிய சாயுஜ்யம் சித்திக்காது போய்விடுகின்ற அவலத்தை மனித வாழ்க்கைக்கு மிக அருகில் இருக்கின்ற அனுபவமான கலவியை கொண்டு அதிலிருக்கின்ற சோகத்தையும் வேதனையையும் கொண்டு வேதாந்தத்தை விளக்குகிறார் இந்தப்புலவர்..[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I have taken care to make the above few Tamil sentences free from typing mistakes. So if you do not get the meaning of any word please look up the nikandu. You need not doubt the correctness of the typed word here.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Only this much can be said openly in this forum. Not because it is taboo or indulgence but because this forum may be read by all age groups and we owe a duty to the youngsters to keep it free from muck.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am not going into the contradiction in opinion in the posts of yours, but limiting my observation to the last quote, viz.,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]this forum may be read by all age groups and we owe a duty to the youngsters to keep it free from muck.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If, as you hold, some explicit details of[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]கலவி[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and the sorrow arising as a result thereof, are "muck"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and should not be shown to youngsters in this forum (which is not as intruding as temple loudspeakers and can only be accessed by young minds through a computer), I fail to understand how you can justify Skanda ShashTi Kavacam (SSK) which makes everyone ask for protection of both male and female body parts like "ceri[/FONT]ḷ[FONT=&quot]a mulaim[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ā[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r", youthful breasts touching each other, ci[/FONT]ṟṟ[FONT=&quot]i[/FONT]ṭ[FONT=&quot]ai (slim waist), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ā[/FONT]ṇ[FONT=&quot]ku[/FONT]ṟ[FONT=&quot]iyira[/FONT]ṇṭ[FONT=&quot]u (the two male genitals), vattakkutam (round anus), etc., and which is routinely blared out from temples today, as regards how such hermaphrodite levels of bhakti will be received and perceived by juvenile minds.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I presume it is not your case that all those who happen to hear, and all those who recite the SSK must have, ipso facto, reached the same level as that of the Azhvars so as to "be a maid this moment, the mother of the maid next moment and can become a helping soul-mate another moment all in the same pathikam." Even in their case I have read that the Azhvars - Andaal apart, the other male Azhvars - had uniformly assumed the bhaava of naayakee and never that of naayaka, am I correct? Or was there gender-confusion in their minds too?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am not including the other points, if any, in your post # 58 so that the length of the reply is readably small.[/FONT]

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

I am not going into the contradiction in opinion in the posts of yours, but limiting my observation to the last quote,If, as you hold, some explicit details of Kalavi and the sorrow arising as a result thereof, are "muck"and should not be shown to youngsters in this forum (which is not as intruding as temple loudspeakers and can only be accessed by young minds through a computer), I fail to understand how you can justify Skanda ShashTi Kavacam (SSK) which makes everyone ask for protection of both male and female body parts like youthful breasts touching each other, (slim waist), (the two male genitals), vattakkutam (round anus), etc., and which is routinely blared out from temples today, as regards how such hermaphrodite levels of bhakti will be received and perceived by juvenile minds.

I am interested in knowing the contradiction that you have found. Please let me know.

If I had thought that the mention of kalavi and the sorrow etc., are muck I would not have mentioned them at all. What I called as muck was those details into which we may have to go if I had come across questions on what I wrote compelling me to elaborate on the subject. I had also indicated what those explicit things would be in simple english bringing in even Osho so that the point is not misunderstood or missed. I am dismayed that you missed the point completely.

I will answer the other point later.
Cheers.