Excerpts from Dialogue with the Guru

[pviyer]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Moved to the religion section. Will wait for Shri Iyer\'s message before removing/editing any posts.

Let this continue in this section. I intentionally started in the General Discussions so that ideas can be freely exchanged on his views but not another round of statements irrelevant to the topic. However that does not mean another round of poking fun on acharyas , making statements irrelevant to the topic under discussion can be made. Nara Sir has behaved responsibly in this . His questions pertained to the topic. I hope praveen you will look into this. There are plenty of statements which are made , which have no relevance to the discussion at hand. Making baseless accusations on Acharya is certainly not part of the deal even if it were under General Discussions.

There is no sly attempt to incite confusion or fight among members. This is one of the other unfounded accusations. I am literally typing these excerpts with my book in hand. Carefully digesting the topic line by line from the book and presenting it in the forum and not doing cut copy paste from any website. Does this look like a sly attempt to incite a fight?

I have no problems with arguments on a topic itself and my intention is to logically establish the view points of the Acharyal. But making loose remarks without logically responding to statements, making accusations on Abhinava Thirtha etc is uncalled for.

I would request sensible members like Nara to participate in discussion keeping in focus only the arguments of Acharyal. I am not worried about argument being proven wrong. I am confident of logically presenting my view. So praveen please use your knowledge of the forum rules and your wisdom to categorize the thread and make amendments. Request you to kindly remove unproven allegations , wherever you put the thread. Ultimately I want the points to be logically discussed without deviations and wild allegations.

 

[pviyer]

Shri Iyer, The real crux of the problem, imho, is that the \"visesha dharma\" referred to by the Acharya does not belong to the above categories. A brahmin is a brahmin by birth, and there is no exams to check the background, competence, calling for his loyalty to brahminness or Sanatana Dharma, etc. Nor is there (nor was there at any time in the historical past, right from the Sunga times) any method to assess whether a born brahmin or, say, a born Sudra was competent in any other profession. Don\'t you agree?

Sangom Sir, who is eligible to conduct an exam to judge a person other than God? In his case he knows without conducting exam. The shastras which proclaim the conduct of a brahmin also mention the eligibility criteria, which you and I are both aware. The choice is left to us by God. If we do not believe it we do not need to be worried about the conduct guidelines. If we believe that these standards have meaning then we have no choice to go by the complete prescription. In either case there is a way. Santhana Dharma is not for only the four castes who believe in the rules. The visesha dharma becomes applicable as per the person\'s true situation, known only to God. Let each act as per his conscience , culture that was taught since childhood, and intellect. The real story is known to God.

It is such a Visesha Dharma - in which the brahmana inherited his braahmanyam just by the accident of birth - which the learned Acharya has been defending imo.

Since you do not believe in God, it is an accident. If you believe in God and think that he is the mastermind of the universe how can anything be accident. Can even an atom move without his will?

How and when? And to whom? Can you kindly elaborate? If Ramakrishna had proved that, why was his chosen disciple singing bombastic paens about Hindu religion alone and that too to westerners, mostly?

a I am surprised that you are not aware that he experimented all religions including Islam, christianity . Viveknanda in one of his address has clearly said that we must not only tolerate all religions, we must accept them to be true. Have you studied the architecture used by Ramakrishna Missions. Have you seen RK Mutt talking about conversion to Hinduism. Are you aware that RK Mutt has even published books on the greatness of Islam.

Sir, there is absolutely no suggestion here to anyone leaving his/her religion of birth or religion of choice. The point at issue is whether what the said Acharya said to the European enquirer is relevant today and whether digging out all those archaeological things has any use for the future generation.

It is certainly not archaeological, as there are still people who mediate on the Shankaracharyas and do their best to follow them to the best of their ability, however difficult it may be to implement in real life. Do we have any economic system or social system which has promoted happiness in mankind. We have stories about the past which indicates this. You may not believe it but if a person believes this , he is not to be blamed, as modern society has no solution at all for the problems we face today.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

Sangom said in post #47:
Hence, when Shri iyer's OP was commented upon by some other members according to their beliefs, Shri Saidevo appeared on the scene with a vakalat on behalf of Shri iyer, the swamiji, sanatana dharma, etc.

Let me clarify the following to our members about my post #23, which shrI Sangom refers to in the quote above as a 'vakalat'.

01. I objected to Sangom's post #17, for his using the term 'mindset' with reference to AchAryAL's specific statement that he has boldfaced in red in the post. I have given my impressions about the statement in question, in post #36.

02. Prasad made some nasty remarks about AchAryAL in post #10 bearing the timestamp 05/10/2011 10:01 AM. Praveen edited and removed these remarks with a note that bears the timestamp 06/10/2011 03:36 PM.

Kameshratnam quoted Prasad's remarks in post #12, but this was before Praveen edited them out. I was surprised that Sangom quoted the remarks in post #17 (timestamp 06/10/2011 05:05 PM)--after Praveen removed it--and justified it. If my post #23 was a vakalat, I should have questioned the propriety of Sangom's persisting with a remark after it was removed, but I let it go.

And members very well know how Sangom has added insult to injury with deliberately provoking remarks on the personality of the Shringeri AchAryas in his subsequent posts.

 

[pviyer]

Saidevo, have you undergone this sadhana you are talking about and verified that it is true? If not how can you be sure that the acharya has adopted this technique to verify the validity of all sashthras? Saidevo, I know I can\'t convince you, but my hope is that young readers will be persuaded to think -- can it be true that nobody has the authority, not even the most revered Acharyas, to change even a small syllable of these anachronistic Varna rules because these rules have been verified to be authentic by the acharya undergoing this thing called sadhana? Even if a handful of youngsters start to think along these lines I think I have made a difference for the good.

Nara Sir, kindly refer to my post #42 which answers your question . Acharyal himself answers the question . Only the revelation of God himself can be taken as the ultimate evidence, not even the person who practiced a spiritual path. The spiritual people can at best echo the words of God and they cannot deviate from the wisdom of our Vedas. While the wisdom of our vedas and its truth as a revelation can be questioned, Acharyal clearly answers that God cannot be logically inferred and one needs to practice the path to know if it is a revelation or not. That distinction must be borne in mind. Acharyal gives credit to the logical ability of the agnostics and finds nothing wrong with their intellectual capability. The clear point to bear in mind is that even if God exists he cannot be logically inferred without a revelation of his existence. Hence yes as an atheist using logical arguments and any kind of physical evidence you will never know God exists, unless you get a revelation or higher experience through some effort on your part, or through the grace of God, due to past effort.

 

[sangom]

namaste Nara.

You said in post #45:

You know that I did not start it. And I know it would be too much for you to advise your friend Sangom about the transgressions in his post #37, that had no relevance to the purported contents of this thread.

Dear Shri Saidevo,

I hope you have noticed that this thread has been shifted under "Religion". It is no longer under "General Discussions". Hence I am constrained by the rules of the Forum. Still I am trying to put forward my views as much in conformity with the Forum Rules applicable here, as possible.

In my view a certain Swamiji or Acharya might be venerated and looked upon as the very God itself - like CS of the Kanchi mutt or SSB who got the epithet Bhagvaan. But that should not make him above any criticism, like the royalty of Thailand, Kuala Lumpur or some other countries. In Britain where the monarchy ruled over a vast empire on which the sun never set, today criticism of the royal household and even the expenditure incurred by the royalty have come to be seen as a burden on the people's exchequer and we find criticism in the media.

Our matham-heads have traditionally been just ornamental heads of the mathams said to have been set-up by Adi Sankara. They did not have a uniform view even about the nuances of Advaita which they were supposed to spread among the eligible population (dwijas only) as per Sankara. They are not authorities vested with powers to interpret, amend or cancel any of the scriptural dicta. So, it is true that they will tell whatever they have been taught and nothing more.

But this role of the mathams has all but made these mathams and their pontiffs generally irrelevant to even the Brahmins for one or two generations before the present. Of course, a large number of people visit Sringeri every year but that is more the general boom in tourist traffic, the natural scenery there, the cheap lodging and, may be, the free food given in the matham/temple, I believe.

There is a tradition probably centuries old, in northern Kerala, called Pottan Theyyam. (see here) This is a satire on the Sankaracharya-chandala episode. This sort of criticism and recording of dissent has been going on for centuries. Why is it that the bhaktas of Sringeri matham did not dare to stop this practice? BTW, poTTan theyyam is a deivam for the believers.

I therefore submit that there is no scope for the Sringeri Bhaktas to get worked up if somebody records his/her views on these Acharyas honestly.

 

[pviyer]

In my view a certain Swamiji or Acharya might be venerated and looked upon as the very God itself - like CS of the Kanchi mutt or SSB who got the epithet Bhagvaan. But that should not make him above any criticism, like the royalty of Thailand, Kuala Lumpur or some other countries. In Britain where the monarchy ruled over a vast empire on which the sun never set, today criticism of the royal household and even the expenditure incurred by the royalty have come to be seen as a burden on the people\\\'s exchequer and we find criticism in the media.

Do you think that everyone object to logical critiscism. Blindly throwing statements here and there cannot be construed as logical criticism. When we discuss a person\\\'s opinion let us plainly discuss only at the level of argument. Not classifying the argument into brackets. It indicates you are cock-sure of your arguments. That may work with your friend circle. In a general forum your arguments alone carry weight-age not how sure you are about them. So lets us remove the statements that do not pertain to context and focus only on the given set of arguments. This is not a very difficult thing to do.

Our matham-heads have traditionally been just ornamental heads of the mathams said to have been set-up by Adi Sankara. They did not have a uniform view even about the nuances of Advaita which they were supposed to spread among the eligible population (dwijas only) as per Sankara. They are not authorities vested with powers to interpret, amend or cancel any of the scriptural dicta. So, it is true that they will tell whatever they have been taught and nothing more.

Ornamental heads? It is your cock-sureness, You have not substantiated it. Vidyaranya literally saved South India. So many of the acharyas provides practical guidelines to millions of people. I am quoting this episode for the benefit of our readers who have no idea of his holiness Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati. They may be Ornamental heads to some but not to others.

After several years, Sri Shantananda of Pudukkottai (Sri Bhuvaneshwari Adhishthanam) became the disciple of Swami Swayamprakashananda. According to his Guru\\\'s instructions, he came to Kanchipuram to perform Srividya Purashcharana. His Guru reminded him of Amba\\\'s instruction and told him to accept bhiksha only at the residence of Sri Kamakoti Shastrigal (Sri Vedamurti Shastrigal had attained Siddhi by then). Sri Shantananda came to Kanchi and began to spend his entire day in the Sannidhi of Sri Kamakshi, immersed in Japa. Sri Kamakoti Shastrigal noticed the rare brilliance in the naked avadhuta and requested him to accept Bhiksha. Swamiji, who had not eaten anything for a week by then, enquired who he was. On hearing his name, Kamakoti, he immediately agreed to accept Bhiksha at his residence. He would eat one ball of rice from the hands of Sri Kamakoti Shastrigal and wipe his hands on his long matted locks. After a month, one morning Shastrigal heard the sound of numerous bells from the Sannidhi of Amba. When he rushed to the temple, he found Swamiji in a state of Samadhi and Amba\\\'s earring was in his hands. Sri Kamakshi had blessed Swami Shantananda and had graced him with Mantra Siddhi. Swamiji, according to instructions from Sri Kamakshi, established a beautiful temple dedicated to Sri Bhuvaneshwari in Pudukkottai. Whenever Swamiji visited Kanchi, he blessed Sri Kamakoti Shastrigal and his family by accepting bhiksha from them. During one such visit, he narrated an incident, \\\'Kamakoti, I was trying to see through my Yogic powers if there really is a self-realized master in physical form currently. I was guided to visit Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati in Sringeri by Sri Bhuvaneshwari. To personally test his realization, I went to Sringeri and sat outside the temple of Sri Sharada. I lay there for three days and no one took notice. On the third day, when I began to leave, an attendant of Mahasannidhanam came running and informed me that Jagadguru wanted to see me. Surprised, I followed him and reached a dark room. It was an empty room and in the middle of the room was seated a frail Yati, whose brilliance seemed superior to that of the Sun. He stared at me and his sight induced shaktipata in me. In seconds, I was in the state of Samadhi. He is the foremost of Jnanis in physical form currently. He is the true Jivanmukta. He will shed his mortal frame in the next few months. Have his Darshan before that\\\'. Sri Kamakoti Shastrigal at once decided to visit Sringeri. The income that he received from the temple was next to nothing. In fact, the temple was in such a bad state that Shastrigal had a big problem offering even Naivedyam to Amba. He would offer whatever he had in his house and because of this, his family spent days without food. As Smt Saroja Mami recollects, \\\'once we were in a very bad financial state and someone gave Mama some dakshina. He immediately bought some grains, made prasadam, offered it to Amba and distributed it to devotees. Family, children, and society - everything was secondary to Kamakshi. Kamakshi was his mother, Guru, friend and child. He took care of her and she always took care of him\\\'. With great difficulty, he managed to reach Sringeri. But Mahasannidhanam was in the state of Samadhi then and there was no saying when he would return to bahirmukha avasthA. Sri Shastrigal requested H H Sri Abhinava Vidya Tirtha Swamigal, the junior Acharya then, to grant him Darshan of Mahasannidhanam. The next day, when Acharya went to pay his customary respects to his Guru, Mahasannidhanam at once opened his eyes and said, \\\'Kamakshi\\\'s child had come to see me. Bring him\\\'. Acharya at once summoned Kamakoti Shastrigal to the holy presence of Sri Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal. Shastrigal performed dirgha danda pranama to the two Acharyas and offered a picture of Sri Kamakshi and tirtha prasada to Mahasannidhanam. The great Jivanmukta, like a child hugging a long lost mother, grabbed the photo, held it close to his heart and tears of joy began to flow from his eyes. After a while he said, \\\'You have brought me great joy. The only lack I have had in this life is of not seeing Sri Kamakshi with this charma chakshu. There is nothing dearer to me than Arya Shataka. Amba has blessed me finally with this photograph and fulfilled my wish. You have given me a photo of my Devata and I will give you your upAsya. shArada is none but Bala\\\'. Saying so, Mahasannidhanam blessed Sri Shastrigal with his lotus hands and gave him a rare photograph of Sri Sharada Parameshwari with a serpent on her crown. This photograph adorns the puja mandira of Sri Shastrigal to this day.

But this role of the mathams has all but made these mathams and their pontiffs generally irrelevant to even the Brahmins for one or two generations before the present. Of course, a large number of people visit Sringeri every year but that is more the general boom in tourist traffic, the natural scenery there, the cheap lodging and, may be, the free food given in the matham/temple, I believe.

This statement of Sangom has neither been substantiated nor is this relevant to discussion of his ideas.

There is a tradition probably centuries old, in northern Kerala, called Pottan Theyyam. (see here) This is a satire on the Sankaracharya-chandala episode. This sort of criticism and recording of dissent has been going on for centuries. Why is it that the bhaktas of Sringeri matham did not dare to stop this practice? BTW, poTTan theyyam is a deivam for the believers.

Is the satire logical or is it incoherent. Lot of things depend on that. What was the way criticism was done and how did the presenters conduct themselves?

 

[Nara]

Nara Sir, kindly refer to my post #42 which answers your question . Acharyal himself answers the question ...., Acharyal clearly answers that God cannot be logically inferred and one needs to practice the path to know if it is a revelation or not. .

Dear pviyer, I must first confess I was not reading the excerpts carefully. The point I wanted to make was the inflexible nature of religious doctrines. However, after you directed my attention to your post #42 I went back and read it and here is my view. I won't fault you if you reject it -- that is your natural right.

In this conversation, both the European and the Acharyal take for granted that there is something called Jeeva, and it can attain salvation, and that some have achieved this, and can guide us towards that goal. I don't accept this premise. There is no convincing evidence to show there is even something called Jeeva, let alone god, salvation, etc. So, in the final analysis, with due respect, I think this whole conversation is a pointless one.

Next, in his answer to the 2nd question covered in post #42, the Acharya makes several important observations with which I agree. Obviously, his generous comments about atheists is much appreciated -- the theists of the forum who berate us regularly, take note, this is your revered Acharya speaking .

But, more importantly, his observation that God cannot be inferred by observation or logic is on the mark. From what I have heard and read, this is what all the Bashyakaras of Brhmma Sutras say, i.e. existence of Ishwara cannot be inferred by pratyaksha/observation or anumana/reasoning pramana. The only way to ascertain the existence of Ishwara is through sabhdha pramana of which Vedas is inviolable. This is precisely why all claims of sadhana, experiencing Brhmman, etc., will always remain rooted in faith.

Here, let me take a moment to address Saidevo's counter that discoveries and inventions of science are also accepted on faith without personal verification. On the surface this may seem like a slam dunk in favor the theists. But, the fallacy in this argument is the assumption faith is faith, there all are equal.

The scientific process is a competitive one, scientists are a skeptical lot, very reluctant to give credit unless the discoveries and inventions can be verified to the satisfaction of competing scientists. No false discovery can stand for long. Further, we all directly benefit from the scientific discoveries. Our modern life will come crumbling down if these are taken away from us even for a short period of time.

So, based on the dedication to repeated validation by competitors and the ubiquitousness of benefits we enjoy from scientific discoveries, science has earned our faith.

In contrast, even the central concept of Jeeva and Ishwara can only be ascertained by unassailable faith free of any trace of skepticism in the Vedas, so say even the most learned and revered Acharyas. This faith is clearly a blind one -- you may not agree with this characterization, but believing something with no evidence whatsoever is the very definition of blind faith.

Further, there is no validation of this concept by competing theists, the way competing scientists verify each others results. Each religion simply rejects the doctrine of others and asserts that their own doctrine is universally true. As evidence all they have is their own god's words or revelations -- very weak.

So, I submit that by their insistence on blind faith and mutual incrimination of each others unverifiable claims, religion/theism has fought tooth and nail to earn our disdain.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Shri pviyer,

I would like to know how the Swamiji comes in when you say in your OP, as under:

(Selective extracts only) Dialogues with the Guru R. Krishnaswamy Iyer A European Gentleman came to see him.

Is the Guru R.Krishnaswamy Iyer , the Swamiji?

Since the words/opinions of the said Swamiji do not mean anything of significance to me (Shri Nara has already explained beautifully here http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/religion/7362-excerpts-dialogue-guru-6.html#post101794) and the point regarding "visesha dharma" have already been replied to by me in post #46, I do not think there is anything more to say about the sayings of the Swamiji.

And since the Swamiji's words other than those which I have replied already, do not appear to be of any significance, I will return to this thread if some point worthy of comment comes up in future.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

First, let me thank PV Iyer for his post #56 that effectively counters Sangom's personal and unsubstantiated opinions in his post #55 addressed to me.

Nara said in post #57:
Here, let me take a moment to address Saidevo's counter that discoveries and inventions of science are also accepted on faith without personal verification. On the surface this may seem like a slam dunk in favor the theists. But, the fallacy in this argument is the assumption faith is faith, there all are equal.

The scientific process is a competitive one, scientists are a skeptical lot, very reluctant to give credit unless the discoveries and inventions can be verified to the satisfaction of competing scientists. No false discovery can stand for long.

It is amazing how a person like Nara, who is an atheist/rationalist in practice, agnostic in disposition, and a scholar in both science and religion, cannot think out of the box.

• The usual argument of our atheist/agnostic friends is that science bases its discoveries on pratyakSha--direct vision, followed by anumAna--inference, which takes the form of a mathematical expression or a hypothesis.

• Let us suppose that a particle physicist 'has discovered' a substomic particle using a particle accelerator, using his direction vision on a display device where the subatomic particular interactions are seen as points and streaks of light.

• Thus, what the physicist sees is not the subatomic particle itself in action, but only a visual representation of it using a system of scientific equipments that are supposed to be inerrant (like our Vedas).

• How does the physicist infer his observation? Through a mental process, in which the visual component (mind's eye in this case) plays a vital role. Our thinking and contemplation is largely visual, which is why it is called a darshan and the person on discovering/understanding a truth considers himself enlightened.

• Let us assume that the inference of the physicist is proved to be not sufficiently correct and later revised or replaced by the vision and inference of another physicist. How can one be sure that the inferences of both these physicists do not have any component of faith/belief, specially when it is a hypothesis? Even in the case of a mathematical expression, some assumptions are made on the constants and variables used?

• Any discovery by inference is based on certain assumptions, which defines the faith/belief component of scientific discoveries. It is the assumptions that spur the progress of science.

• The original discovery of Vedic truths by our ancient Vedic RShis who were spiritual scientists, were also initiated by pratyakSha and anumAna which led to the revelation of the truth in experience. The pratyakSha in their case is the I-consciousness and the external world. The anumAna in their case is was the relationship between the self and the world.

• The big difference between the discovery of our first and second physicists in the above example and the Vedic RShis is the level of complacency. Unlike the first physicist who was complacent with his discovery as the ultimate, and the second physicist who believed his discovery to be the ultimate based on his own level of complacency, the Vedic RShis did not rest until the Absolute Truth was revealed to them.

Further, there is no validation of this concept by competing theists, the way competing scientists verify each others results.

• Had this been true, we will not be having our ShaD-darshanas and the three main kali yuga darshanas. The scientific validation seeks to corroborate or replace a discovery that was earlier assumed to lead to a fact. The validation of the Vedic truths is in the validation of their varied manifestations, with the discovery of the undercurrent of the Absolute Truth in each of these manifestations.

The supposed inerrancy of science is progressively revised because the facts and truths established are at the surface level, and are thus conditional. The inerrancy of Vedas is in the absolute nature of the truths revealed, so they need only progressive confirmation--not progressive validation.

In this sense, Sangoms term kUpamaNDukam--frog in the well, is more applicable to science where the specialists are complacent at their own levels, being either hesitant or indifferent to explore the levels underneath.

PS: For those who find it difficult to read the long quote in post #56 that appears unformatted, here is the link:
http://www.kamakotimandali.com/sringeri/kshastrigal.html

 

[Nara]

Dear Saidevo, I am under no illusion that I can convince you. So I am going to leave it, but with a couple of comments.

.....

• The original discovery of Vedic truths by our ancient Vedic RShis who were spiritual scientists, were also initiated by pratyakSha and anumAna which led to the revelation of the truth in experience. The pratyakSha in their case is the I-consciousness and the external world. The anumAna in their case is was the relationship between the self and the world.

Is it not interesting that theists like you always want your religion to be like science? You do this by either by elevating your acharyas to the status of scientists like you have done above, or by pulling down science to your level by saying science is also a faith, like you have done earlier. Why this "me too" comparison with science? Stand on your own merits.

From your past posts I take it you are an advocate of Advaitam. If I am right I would like you to consider the fact that the patron saint acharya of Advaitam, Adi Sankara, says pratyaksham and anumanam are fundamentally flawed and cannot be relied upon. So, these so called "spiritual scientists", if they were initiated by these sources of knowledge -- i.e. pratyaksham and anumanam -- could end up only as atheists, only faith in the Vedas, a faith that is by definition blind faith, can take them into the cul de sac of religion.

Cheers!

 

[sarang]

Theists are comfortable with spiritualism, religion and science and get maximum benefit from all disciplines (!) while the atheists have to be satisfied with hugging a changing a transient stone and missing all the 'other' goodies.

At least, theists have a broad mind and broader vision and accept that there are issues more lofty than the theorems solved in day to day life. I believe there are more theist scientists than those who deny God (they also call him by different names - a higher force etc. and claim they benefit a lot from spiritualism related practices - yoga, meditation, retreats etc.)

Karunanidhi, doing yoga under an iyengar teacher, preferred to do 'aadavan vanakkam' instead of surya namaskar as it did not offend his atheist sensibilities.

As we all theists benefit from science-induced products and services (though we acknowledge the merits of science), let the atheists also benefit from the visible and practical side of sanatana dharma, even when acknowledgement is not given.

 

[sangom]

Swaimgal : If the existence of God is so patent a fact and so easily inferable, how do you account for atheists and agnostics in the world? Do you mean to say that their powers of intellect and capacity for reasoning are in anyway inferior to yours? On the other hand, you will find that the thinkers who have taken the trouble to think out the existence of God and failed are men of extraordinary intellect. Their failure to prove God is not due to any fault in their intellectual equipment, but to the fact that God is essentially uninferable. Further assuming that by the aid of reasoning you can infer the existence of God, who told you that there is a God to be inferred? Certainly you depend upon some previous information for that knowledge. If somebody tells you that there is a God, you may try your reasoning powers at proving him. If you have never heard of God at all, there is nothing to incite or awaken your powers of reasoning.

The Swamiji who is described as a Foremost Jnaani and a true Jivanmukta in another post, himself says that the “God” concept has to be “put into” a person’s awareness and only then only that person will be able to reason out God, and also that God is essentially uninferable. Hence we have a vicious circle; it is not sufficient if a person is told about God but he/she has to be made to believe in God without making any questions about it. That is why the Christian and Islamic religions insist on unquestioning belief in God. In the case of Hinduism this belief is required towards the Vedas and their pronouncements which, in their turn, justify the other scriptures which justify the entire belief system.

The Swamiji’s statements also give scope for children being brought up without God concept. Luckily, Swamiji does not say that the absence of the belief in a God will cause any catastrophe to the person concerned.

 

[prasad1]

Even very smart scientist (they too are Humans) admit that they do know it all. If they did there should be no new discoveries. Dogma of all kind are wrong. It is like the story of 6 blind men trying to describe an elephant for the first time after touching one part of the elephant. Majority of Humans will agree that they are ignorant about something. For the majority there is a curiosity to know and learn. I feel most of us are in that category.

Auvaiyar said:
Her quote "Katrathu Kai Mann Alavu, Kallathathu Ulagalavu" has been translated as "What you have learned is a mere handful; What you haven't learned is the size of the world" and exhibited at NASA.

In words of Jaggi Vasudev:
"The sign of intelligence is that you are constantly wondering. Idiots are always dead sure about every damn thing they are doing in their life."

 

[Nara]

PS: For those who find it difficult to read the long quote in post #56 that appears unformatted, here is the link:
Brahmasri Kamakoti Shastri

Thanks Saidevo, for this link, I did skip the quoted text of pviyer because it was very difficult to read. The text in the link is formatted well for reading, even though I can't say the same for what is written there, with all the swamijis and sashtrijis it was initially quite confusing to me.

In any case, pviyer quoted this text to rebut Sangom sir's comment that some of the Acharyas are merely Ornamental heads of Mathams. Whether or not Shri Sangom's comment was uncalled for, I don't understand in what way the quoted text rebuts it. All I saw was fantastic and hagiographical stories. Like Sangom here, I am at a loss to understand how these stories jive with principles of Advaitam. How can a Jeevan Muktha, one who has realized the ultimate truth -- i.e. he is non-different from nirguna brhman -- be so moved by ephemeral saguna reflections as a photo of Kamakshi?

I was also perplexed by some parts of the story.

The story claims Sri Kamakshi appeared filled with compassion towards her burning son, Sri Swayamprakashananda. If this is so, why did she not show herself when he arrived in Kanchi, like all other temples? Why did she let her son suffer so much?

This did not strike me as a very loving and compassionate thing to do. Even I, with more than my fair share of all the shortcomings of a mere mortal, can't wait to go and greet my little canine master when we are forced to leave him alone at home to away to places where we can't take him for short duration. Jagat Amba making a great Avadhuta wait for 49 and suffer severe pain before showing up and welcoming him seems a bit much.

In another incidence, Jagat Amba, in spite of all her love and compassion and by now familiar indifference, seems to have let Sri Kamakoti Shastrigal suffer in abject poverty. For the Shastigal, everything was secondary to Kamakshi, Kamakshi was his mother, Guru, friend and child, and yet Amba was not unhappy to let his family spend days without food.

Further, these Avadhutas seem to expect to be received by great acharyas and gods themselves when they go to see them. Sri Swayamprakashananda was expecting the Jagat Amba to show up and welcome him wherever he went. Swami Shantananda expected Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati to personally welcome him, though this was supposed to be a test of the Acharyal's jeevan mukthi status -- which, if Adavaitam is true, he surely failed by passing the Swami S's test.

In summary, pviyer, I just don't understand how this quoted text bolseters your case.

Cheers!

p.s. I don't wish to hurt anyone's feelings. If this post is not welcome here, please let me know and I will transfer it to the thread where Sangom sir posted his views.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

This is in response to your post #60.

I am under no illusion that I can convince you.
So am I.

Is it not interesting that theists like you always want your religion to be like science? You do this by either by elevating your acharyas to the status of scientists like you have done above, or by pulling down science to your level by saying science is also a faith, like you have done earlier. Why this "me too" comparison with science? Stand on your own merits.

We as theists don't compare our religion and spirituality with science, except when we are required to. You see, when a theist debates with an atheist who tries to dismiss everything metaphysical as blind belief, but at the same time believes in everything that is physical, visual, inferable and rational as scientific, there is no way to put the points across except by comparision with the methods of science.

• In this thread for example, you said in post #33 that religion demands people to be blindly faithful, which makes their stance like 'Ostrich like' and that our AchAryas too "feel compelled by tradition to willingly imprison themselves within the walls of dictates of the sashtras."

• I countered this in post #34 that our traditional AchAryas verify the shAstric truths by their yoga-sAdhana and you could understand it only if you undergo such sAdhana. You countered this in post #45 asking if I had undergone that sAdhana to believe our AchAryas. It is in response to this query from you that I had to bring in science and say "I am sure of my AchArya in the same way that you are sure of the discoveries and inventions of science, without having a first-hand verification of them."

• Since the Atheists have no common 'textbook' to follow but most of them believe in the inerrancy of science, such comparisions become necessary even if we theists don't want it, to have some common ground of discussion to get across points from both sides.

• Secondly, Nara, whether you like it or not, agree with or not, physical science is a subset of metaphysical philosophy, in the same way the physical realm is a subset of the metaphysical realm.

• So, when a follower of science doesn't want to look beyond the physical, however logical it might be, probably for fear of losing his comfort level and complacence offered by the physicality, the occasion arises for the theist to get down to the physical level to show that the yuktis that make it work are the same at both the physical and metaphysical levels. Two yuktis that are common to both levels are the pratyakSha and anumAna.

From your past posts I take it you are an advocate of Advaitam.

Yes, but I am equally interested in reconciling the truths of other Hindu traditions and philosophies and the facts of physical science into an overall hierarchy, so we get the picture of life running on the white screen of Advaita.

Adi Sankara, says pratyaksham and anumanam are fundamentally flawed and cannot be relied upon. So, these so called "spiritual scientists", if they were initiated by these sources of knowledge -- i.e. pratyaksham and anumanam -- could end up only as atheists, only faith in the Vedas, a faith that is by definition blind faith, can take them into the cul de sac of religion.

• You are just parrotting this wheneve you get a chance. Any sAdhaka needs to start his spiritual inquiry with the pratyakSham of the Self and the anumAna of its nature and relationship with the world, under the guidance of the Vedas. Yes, they are unreliable as final tools, which is why I said our Vedic RShis, who originally undertook this Atma-sAdhana, did not stop with them but persisted on until the truths were given to them by revelation. This is in accordance with the teaching of the Shringeri AchArya seen in the extract in PVIyer's post #42.

• That you people don't believe in such revelation is irrelevant to us, because you might be unwilling to admit that a scientist like Einstein who conducted his 'experiments' in the 'laboratory of mind' got many of his facts right by revelation.

Thus, I don't see how you can logically proceed to disprove the metaphysical truths, except by dismissing them as blind faith, which is not disproving them anyway.

 

[Nara]

.... It is in response to this query from you that I had to bring in science ...

Saidevo, nobody put a gun to your head, you were not forced to do anything, you chose to bring it in, either to elevate your faith or to pull down science, in either case it is clear where your faith is with respect to science in your own mind .

alright, enough said ....

 

[sangom]

Saidevo, nobody put a gun to your head, you were not forced to do anything, you chose to bring it in, either to elevate your faith or to pull down science, in either case it is clear where your faith is with respect to science in your own mind .

alright, enough said ....

Now, I feel that Shri pviyer should come out with more and more from that valuable book so that we all will get more interesting glimpses of jeevanmuktas, divya chakshuses, anandas, avadhutas and their egos even after being awarded jeevanmukta status by bhaktas.

 

[pviyer]

In this conversation, both the European and the Acharyal take for granted that there is something called Jeeva, and it can attain salvation, and that some have achieved this, and can guide us towards that goal. I don\'t accept this premise. There is no convincing evidence to show there is even something called Jeeva, let alone god, salvation, etc. So, in the final analysis, with due respect, I think this whole conversation is a pointless one.

Has this been quoted as a discussion for evidence of God? There is a separate discussion where the Acharyal answers the questions of an agnostic. The doubts expressed by this European, a believer , was answered in that context. There is hence no need for them to start with basic questions on God in that particular conversation. It is sufficient to discuss based on a common ground. So no assumptions have been made in this regard.

But, more importantly, his observation that God cannot be inferred by observation or logic is on the mark. From what I have heard and read, this is what all the Bashyakaras of Brhmma Sutras say, i.e. existence of Ishwara cannot be inferred by pratyaksha/observation or anumana/reasoning pramana. The only way to ascertain the existence of Ishwara is through sabhdha pramana of which Vedas is inviolable. This is precisely why all claims of sadhana, experiencing Brhmman, etc., will always remain rooted in faith.

In the same thread and elsewhere I have answered on the means to know God. In this very thread Saidevo has given the answer to your statement on Vedas and Pramana. In a nutshell using logic based on mundane observations it is impossible to know or see God. God will neither be found in your microscope or telescope or based on any inference based on these devices or direct observation as is possible with the senses. However realization has never been denied in the vedas. What is the state of realization varies from philosophy to philosophy , not the concept of experience of God itself.

The scientific process is a competitive one, scientists are a skeptical lot, very reluctant to give credit unless the discoveries and inventions can be verified to the satisfaction of competing scientists. No false discovery can stand for long. Further, we all directly benefit from the scientific discoveries. Our modern life will come crumbling down if these are taken away from us even for a short period of time.

This is a separate discussion. I would like to add that the observation and inferences of Scientists will continue to be subject to their own limitations as a human being as long as they do not take recourse to the path of God realization.

In contrast, even the central concept of Jeeva and Ishwara can only be ascertained by unassailable faith free of any trace of skepticism in the Vedas, so say even the most learned and revered Acharyas. This faith is clearly a blind one -- you may not agree with this characterization, but believing something with no evidence whatsoever is the very definition of blind faith.

This very question has been addressed in a rather straightforward way by acharyal in a discussion with an atheist which I will be quoting here in the succeeding post.

Further, there is no validation of this concept by competing theists, the way competing scientists verify each others results. Each religion simply rejects the doctrine of others and asserts that their own doctrine is universally true. As evidence all they have is their own god\'s words or revelations -- very weak.

Who said so, one cannot keep the benchmark for agreement based on the different levels of realizations. At a particular level of realization there is a broad convergence of concepts apt for that level of realization. The higher the level of realization the more there is agreement in views. At the higher levels there is only one God who manifests in many ways.Most of the modern Europeans have investigated beyond intellectual levels. That is why their concept of religion seems divergent with oriental religions like Hinduism , Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism. More the direct spiritual experiences experienced by individuals, some kind of agreement is being is seen. There is thus the level of spiritual realization, which you do not concede, but exists in the same way as there are levels of intellectual abilities. A rat with a brain which bears similarities to human brain still suffers from disabilities in intellect , which are seldom expressed in humans. This may be due to brain functioning. Needless to say in nature there are different levels of intellectual capacity. The same thing is true with the realization as well.

 

[pviyer]

This is a conversation recorded with an agnostic page 88. Agnostic : How can we believe in a person whose existence there is no proof?

Swamigal : Do we believe only in those things whose existence is proved.( My comment , it is not uncommon to hear scientists express that they have belief in something. It might be an educated guess, but it is nevertheless a belief. Acharyal is not opposing this kind of expression of belief. You may refer here for an example http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&so...g69yhHuhA&sig2=ADvvUnk7JkrSxoFmfL1xMQ&cad=rja , it is said here that \"but many AI scientists believe that artificial intelligence inevitably will equal and surpass human mental abilities-if not in twenty years, then surely ...\" )

If we limit our belief to such things it will be impossible to do anything in this world. We have to have faith in the words of everyone that comes into contact with us. As a stranger standing by the road directs you, at your request, to a house you are searching for, you do not embark on an enquiry as to his honesty or as to the correctness of his knowledge, but placing immediate and implicit reliance on him , you go as directed by him. If then you reach the wrong house, it will be time enough to find fault with him.

( My comment: Acharyal is saying many things by this example. He is saying that a fundamental means of existence in human life is a belief in something, though no one is disputing that beliefs can be educated beliefs.Acharyal understands that everyone has a background which can be different. This comes across in his earlier discussion with a European. Acharyal does not want people to make half hearted attempts. Hence his exhortation to people to strongly follow the faith of their birth. He knows where the concepts converge and where they diverge. He knows that these adventures are not fruitless. One can be shown the path, if you are an outright pessimist you will reject it, There is no reason to assume that a believer and a non believer can be differentiated as separated groups merely based on the premise of honesty. Honesty and Dishonesty is to found everywhere. One\'s life is fruitful if one follows one\'s religion of birth atleast to some degree, without a need for giving up on one\'s secular activities. There is nothing wrong in being a scientist, yet making sure that one is not missing one\'s sunday church sessions. The benefit of following religion is narrated in a different passage which I will quote later, as I have already deviated from my previous conversation to answer Nara Sir)

If however , before following his diections you want him to prove to you that he right, the only thing he an do is take you by hand and lead you to the house, even then you must be prepared to go with him. It will not do if you refuse to move a single step and yet expect him to prove the correctness of his statement. Similarly when you have absolutely no reason to doubt the good faith of our ancient sers who proclaim God, you must be prepared to place implicit faith in their words. If you follow their dictates and fin at the end they were wrong, it will be time enough then to blame then, not till then

 

[Nara]

Has this been quoted as a discussion for evidence of God?

Sorry pviyer, I was probably not precise enough. I don't disagree that between the Acharyal and the European, there was an agreement on the basic faith that there exists an entity called god. My disinterest in the conversation was based on my opinion that the whole premise is demonstrably untenable.

. However realization has never been denied in the vedas.

Yes, yes, this I agree, the Vedas do not deny this realization. But my problem is why Vedas must be taken as inerrant. Consider this, the claim is every last word of the Vedas is inerrant. Then, if I can show one word of Vedas to be untrue, then the whole compendium may be rejected as untrue. Just look at all the nonsense in the poorva mimamsa, would anybody in their right mind assert they are true? Given poorva mimamsa is nonsense, why should anybody believe a word of uttara mimamsa?

Most of the modern Europeans have investigated beyond intellectual levels. That is why their concept of religion seems divergent with oriental religions like Hinduism , Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism.

Please do not hitch your wagon to opposition to European scholars. In what way is the the religion of Brahminism congruent to that of the indigenous religions that celebrate Aiyanar, Mariamman, etc.? Brahminism rejects the polytheistic practices of indigenous peoples. IMO, the more monotheistic a religion tends to be, the more dangerous they become.

A rat with a brain which bears similarities to human brain still suffers from disabilities in intellect , which are seldom expressed in humans. This may be due to brain functioning. Needless to say in nature there are different levels of intellectual capacity. The same thing is true with the realization as well.

pviyer, this is so vague that the same argument can be made against what you present as ultimate truth. Please sir, let us stick to facts and what can be demonstrated.

Dear sir, if you revere your acharya that is just great, I respect that, I have nothing to say. Problem arises only when you express this reverence in an open forum and expect those who disagree to stay silent. I hope you appreciate this subtle point.

Cheers!

 

[pviyer]

In any case, pviyer quoted this text to rebut Sangom sir\'s comment that some of the Acharyas are merely Ornamental heads of Mathams. Whether or not Shri Sangom\'s comment was uncalled for, I don\'t understand in what way the quoted text rebuts it.

The quote was provided merely as an illustration for the kind of regard people had for the Acharyal. The stories of miracles are meant for believers and not to just rebute Sangom Sir. In any case with or without the miracles quoted being just an illusion, the regard that people had for him cannot be discounted and unsubstantiated claims be made, that the Acharyal was just an Ornamental head. It is in the eyes of a few, I do not disagree, but not in the eyes of others. Sangom Sir cannot proclaim his personal view as a universal view which is the thing that has been rebuted. He has all the marks of a respectable saint as any other that can be found around everywhere. By what logic then, does the post become ornamental?

I am at a loss to understand how these stories jive with principles of Advaitam. How can a Jeevan Muktha, one who has realized the ultimate truth -- i.e. he is non-different from nirguna brhman -- be so moved by ephemeral saguna reflections as a photo of Kamakshi?

Being moved by devotion was a characteristic right from Adi Shankaracharya. It is called paramanandam and one is obviously in a saguna state when one\'s mind is focused on the existing world. This difference can be explained quote proficiently by members like Saidevo.

The story claims Sri Kamakshi appeared filled with compassion towards her burning son, Sri Swayamprakashananda. If this is so, why did she not show herself when he arrived in Kanchi, like all other temples? Why did she let her son suffer so much? This did not strike me as a very loving and compassionate thing to do. Even I, with more than my fair share of all the shortcomings of a mere mortal, can\'t wait to go and greet my little canine master when we are forced to leave him alone at home to away to places where we can\'t take him for short duration. Jagat Amba making a great Avadhuta wait for 49 and suffer severe pain before showing up and welcoming him seems a bit much.

I do not see much value in these discussions as the reasons can be anything. No-one here is privy to Ambal\'s mind. But at the same time we can relatively be sure that Ambal shows her presence only when a devotee has qualified for her vision.

In another incidence, Jagat Amba, in spite of all her love and compassion and by now familiar indifference, seems to have let Sri Kamakoti Shastrigal suffer in abject poverty. For the Shastigal, everything was secondary to Kamakshi, Kamakshi was his mother, Guru, friend and child, and yet Amba was not unhappy to let his family spend days without food.

Ambal wants people to overcome their disease for giving up things on just a few failures and difficulties. There is no real value of material possessions, and these are sometimes granted by granted by Ambal when she feels that a person needs some inspiration or a work to be done. Each according to his real need. Poverty is not considered as a curse by people of higher states of realization and rather welcomed by people like the Avadhootas. There is no doubt at all in this.

Further, these Avadhutas seem to expect to be received by great acharyas and gods themselves when they go to see them. Sri Swayamprakashananda was expecting the Jagat Amba to show up and welcome him wherever he went. Swami Shantananda expected Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati to personally welcome him, though this was supposed to be a test of the Acharyal\'s jeevan mukthi status -- which, if Adavaitam is true, he surely failed by passing the Swami S\'s test.

You do not have the statement of swami\'s statement on his intent. You are just speculating based on your own way of thinking. Is it not true that you yourself, of no extraordinary spiritual effort, are expecting God to come and show his presence before the microscope. What is then wrong that the Avadhuta who has put great effort in this matter, as can be seen in the story itself, if he even expects the Ambal to show herself to him. Are we qualified to pass a judgement on that?

 

[Nara]

.... As a stranger standing by the road directs you, at your request, to a house you are searching for, you do not embark on an enquiry as to his honesty or as to the correctness of his knowledge, but placing immediate and implicit reliance on him , you go as directed by him. If then you reach the wrong house, it will be time enough to find fault with him.

pviyer, this is an excellent analogy for what is being advocated by the revered Acharyal. As a stranded stranger you rely on somebody who directs you. You have no idea whether you are being directed correctly or not, yet you follow the direction. Only when the direction given to you turns out to be false you realize your folly of believing the charlatan.

In matters of religion and spirituality, this realization can come under two conditions, (i) when you are already dead and gone, i.e. it never comes, and therefore there is no way of warning others, or (ii) when you realize all this is cock and bull story while you are still alive, in which case you can have a chance to lead a virtuous and meaningful life, but not many theists will believe you.

pviyer, as Shri Sangom points out, the revered Acharyal is fixated by what has been taught to him. To his disciples, it is worse than matricide to question what he teaches. Under this circumstance I just can't see how we can have a dialog without hurting your feelings, something I loath to do.

Cheers!

 

[pviyer]

Sorry pviyer, I was probably not precise enough. I don\'t disagree that between the Acharyal and the European, there was an agreement on the basic faith that there exists an entity called god. My disinterest in the conversation was based on my opinion that the whole premise is demonstrably untenable.

Even before you heard what he had to say to an agnostic you said his premise was untenable. I am not sure whom are you trying to convince. If it is just that you want to earn a few more likes from your friends who are atheists , you are likely to get it with everyword quoted from the book of any of the renowned atheists of the world. Please go ahead and express your disinterest and get as many likes as you can. No theist is going to be convinced of those arguments on such a trivial ground.

Yes, yes, this I agree, the Vedas do not deny this realization. But my problem is why Vedas must be taken as inerrant. Consider this, the claim is every last word of the Vedas is inerrant. Then, if I can show one word of Vedas to be untrue, then the whole compendium may be rejected as untrue. Just look at all the nonsense in the poorva mimamsa, would anybody in their right mind assert they are true? Given poorva mimamsa is nonsense, why should anybody believe a word of uttara mimamsa?

This is your approach to life perhaps, but the Acharyal\'s anwer to the agnostic has been given in the subsequent post. I would like to add that in Acharyal\'s view not only should vedas be considered untenable without a full effort, none of the religions that exist in this world can be given up without effort. Just because someone finds calculus difficult to learn, he cannot give it up. Otherwise he will never understand theories and equations based on Calculus.

Please do not hitch your wagon to opposition to European scholars. In what way is the the religion of Brahminism congruent to that of the indigenous religions that celebrate Aiyanar, Mariamman, etc.? Brahminism rejects the polytheistic practices of indigenous peoples. IMO, the more monotheistic a religion tends to be, the more dangerous they become.

As Is well known it is the hindus of whom brahmins are a community are willing to accommodate the books and philosophy of the Europeans in their house. There is no need for them to give the pride of the place, for books and works written based only on intellectual speculations. I am sure many brahmins , including the orthodox, respect even diehard christians, who appear to be honest and have had some practical spiritual realizations. There is a difference between montheism and that form of religion which thinks different forms of worship lead to the same one God. It is the former which is dangerous and not certainly the latter. You do not think indigenous religions are congruent to whatever you think is brahminism. But the orthodox advaitin does not think so. In fact our Kanchi Paramacharyal has praised Muthuswamy Dikshithar. Muthuswamy Dikshithar was known to have worshipped in even shrines like the Mariamman shrines that you speak of. They think that it is the same Amman who really blesses the worthy believer in any God. It is your problem that you do not see congruence, not the problem of that scholar who was certainly as well versed with religious intricacies as you are.

pviyer, this is so vague that the same argument can be made against what you present as ultimate truth. Please sir, let us stick to facts and what can be demonstrated.

I only pointed out that there can be different levels of realizations. What is the realization is upto each individual. There is no need to dismiss that possibility even before you have embarked on some journey. Why the religions appear on the surface to be different is for those who discuss things at the level of experience to sort out. From your point of view there is no realization. I have no issues with that. However you cannot presume that there is no common ground between people of different religions, when there are religious people who themselves declare that there is some common ground. Even the catholic church has atleast admitted this as a first step. Cheers!

Dear sir, if you revere your acharya that is just great, I respect that, I have nothing to say. Problem arises only when you express this reverence in an open forum and expect those who disagree to stay silent. I hope you appreciate this subtle point.

I believe in my acharyal, what do you expect me to do, silently think about him without sharing my views to others. Am I not to express my convictions in his views. I understand that in a forum there is bound to be difference of opinion but I have the right to point out that your arguments do not appear to be logical to all. May be to some but not to some others! There are some who would tend to be convinced of my arguments in preference to yours, or some may support Acharyal\'s views in a much better way than I do. I have no problems with that either. I am hence not concerned by your questions on his views and I personally welcome it. However I cannot be expected to show the same degree of restraint to views expressed by some others, which are so very unsubstantiated. Even there my opposition is at a logical level only. Everyone can take it up for themselves and accept which ever view they are in resonance with. I am not expecting you to changeover.

 

[pviyer]

pviyer, as Shri Sangom points out, the revered Acharyal is fixated by what has been taught to him. To his disciples, it is worse than matricide to question what he teaches. Under this circumstance I just can\'t see how we can have a dialog without hurting your feelings, something I loath to do.

That is what you feel. The theists here are convinced that you are fixated in that opinion that there can be no realization at all. It is a difficulty and the choice is left to everyone.There is no growth in a tree unless there is provision for water. One needs to wait for the tree to grow before we can enjoy its fruits. Nevertheless if Acharyal has experienced even some degree of realization , he cannot be expected to ask people not to check out the Vedic teachnings themselves. The benefits of worship of God as opposed to blindly refusing to put even one step forward is apparent.

 

[sarang]

Whether theist or atheist, all have same brain matter. It is generally accepted that we use only 10% of our brain capacity. Theists acknowledge this limitation and are keen to explore explore bigger and nobler issues as taught and guided by their acharyas, revealed by scriptures and sanctified by tradition. They are keen to move further despite the shackles created by the 10% 'active' matter. Atheists believe that 10% is bigger than 90%, and worse still, shout loudly that they alone are right, and want to wipe out only tamil brahmins (here at least, we don't know what they say in a christian or muslim forum).

Those who have faith and wisdom must ignore wise cracks, and gross insults and move on.