Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[sarma-61]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sri Sarma -

I was not following this thread until I saw a "new person" post a comment. I realize you are a member lot longer than I am and I find your comment hilarious

After seeing your post, I am reminded of a few quotes! This is just poking light hearted fun at how Tamil Brahmins love to debate, discuss and argue! A disclaimer: None of these quotes are directed at anyone!

" Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance." by Robert Quillen


"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
- William James


"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
- unknown



"A little learning is a dangerous thing."
- Alexander Pope


"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
- Albert Einstein


"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
- Bertrand Russell


Regards

Shri tks sir,

I am happy that my post could evoke some laughter in you. This being a forum of (for) Tamil Brahmins, it is necessary that we think how many of us Tamil Brahmins give any consideration to "vedaantam" in our day-to-day lives; AFAIK, except the mantram starting with "vEdAnta vijnAna suniScitAtmA samnyAsa ...." recited at the time of neerAjanam, people do not bother whether it is dvaitam or advaitam. In a way we all live according to Saint Thyagarajar's song "dvaitamu sukhamaa advaitamu sukhama..." and go after "sukham" only. (I am twisting the Saint's kriti; may he pardon my mischief!). So, why should there be such protracted discussion on these topics?

I find that even the moderator who is generally a sleeping partner, suddenly woke up and came into the picture supporting the original poster and questioning the integrity of two or three veterans; result—these veterans have disappeared. Perhaps this is the example of maaya in advaitam

I found this quote about discussions which you may like:

Never argue with a fool or he will drag you down to his level and beat you at it through sheer experience!

 

[Raghy]

I tried to understand what is happening in this thread but failed miserably! May be my intelligence is very poor.

Will all this "advaitam", "dvaitam" etc., help one starving fellow get his next square meals? No. So, this is all frivlous argumentation just to show off each one's so-called philosophical knowledge No one has seen "parabrahmam" (including Adisankarar, perhaps) and no one will see in the future also. But some kaashaaya-clad Swamijis will lead a comfortable life speaking of all such "kavaikku utavaata kaariyangkaL"; who here belongs to this group?

Dear Sri.Sarma Sir, Greetings.

'Showing off philosophical knowledge' is not wrong. No one is affected for the worst by such 'show-offs'.

Sir, you may have not seen 'parabrahmam'; that does not mean no one had seen it in the past and/or no one would see it in the future. I have seen Brahmam many times; possibly would see many more times in the future. Can I show that to you? Possibly not; it should happen in your life, based on incidents happening around you. Brahmam is not sitting on a chair providing 'darshan' to all and sundry. It is an experience.

None of the members promoted any of the swamiji during their discussion. I don't see the reason for mentioning 'kaavya-clad swamijis' here.

Unfortunately, your comment had not contributed in anyway to this thread. Will 'advaitam', 'dvaitam' etc. help one starving fellow? Quite possibly it would. Millions are benefitted by donations made in the name of spiritual advances. Empathy, compassion and such feelings are based on these philosophies. We may not talk about these philosophies in our daily life; that does not mean we don't think of such philosophies.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Dear Raghy Ji,

I was reading Sri Rama Gita commentary by Swami Chinmayananda today and a particular line was there about the concept of Form and Formless and I thought of you when I read that because you had brought that topic up before.

Ok here goes: Form is possible only to the limited.When something is conditioned by something else,it possesses a form.
Space,being all-pervading, has no form.Pure Consciousness being beyond the body,mind and intellect equipments is deconditioned from everything and therefore this unconditioned Self can only be Formless.

page 14 Sri Rama Gita
by Swami Chinmayananda

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Sri.Sarma Sir, Greetings.

'Showing off philosophical knowledge' is not wrong. No one is affected for the worst by such 'show-offs'.

Sir, you may have not seen 'parabrahmam'; that does not mean no one had seen it in the past and/or no one would see it in the future. I have seen Brahmam many times; possibly would see many more times in the future. Can I show that to you? Possibly not; it should happen in your life, based on incidents happening around you. Brahmam is not sitting on a chair providing 'darshan' to all and sundry. It is an experience.

None of the members promoted any of the swamiji during their discussion. I don't see the reason for mentioning 'kaavya-clad swamijis' here.

Unfortunately, your comment had not contributed in anyway to this thread. Will 'advaitam', 'dvaitam' etc. help one starving fellow? Quite possibly it would. Millions are benefitted by donations made in the name of spiritual advances. Empathy, compassion and such feelings are based on these philosophies. We may not talk about these philosophies in our daily life; that does not mean we don't think of such philosophies.

Cheers!

Shri Raghy sir,

I apologize if my words have hurt you. But it is a surprise for me that even though you say you have no great knowledge of philosophy, you also claim confidently in this post addressed to me, that "I have seen Brahmam many times; possibly would see many more times in the future." But, by whatever I have understood about Sankara's advaitam, if you stick to the claim "I have seen Brahmam", you are miserably letting down Sankara and his original advaitam , because when you come near Brahmam, there is no duality possible. If you still claim that you, as a separate entity, have seen brahmam, it proves dvaitam, and not advaitam, am I right? Elders in my family always discouraged reading the philosophy books because many people have taken to sanyasa and all that under the misguiding instructions of such books and even gone mad due to our vedantam.

Sankara's advaitam was, it is generally believed, not entertained even by the Namboothiris for quite some time. It is believed that one north Indian king had allowed Sankara to be always accompanied by a large army of hundreds of warriors and many of his actions was possible due to this. You will find reference to this in Satyartha Prakasa of Dayanand Sarasvathi and also epigraphic evidences from A.P. and other places. Even the Malayalam Era, Kolla Varsham is linked to a visit of Sankara to kollam and meeting the then potentate of the small kingdom of Kollam (Quilon). Probably Sankara was accepted by Namboothiris also only after this meeting.

"Millions are benefitted by donations made in the name of spiritual advances. Empathy, compassion and such feelings are based on these philosophies."

Can you explain, sir, where and how any of these three philosophies - advaitham, visishtadvaitham or dvaitham - instruct that "charity" is recommended as a necessary and salutary step for attaining liberation from "samsaara", the endless cycle of births and deaths? To the best of my knowledge, which is very small, and guess, the vedanta philosophies were only interested in telling people how they can escape rebirth and attain "moksha" or liberation from all worldly troubles. Naturally, the vedanta was not at all concerned with the good of the world. You might have heard the story of a Guru and Sishya resting somewhere, the Sishya finds a snake about to devour a frog and throws a stone at the frog, so it escapes; the guru chides the disciple for causing loss of food to the snake though the disciple was prompted by goodness of mind and wanted to save the frog's life. Vedanta is so unfeeling. I may not, however, know if some valuable advice to do charity as part of gaining "moksha" is present somewhere. So, I will stand corrected by your answer. Please do not just give your beliefs - as Shri Sravna has been doing here - but support them with relevant references particulars from the authoritative works of the three Acharyas, like Brahmasutra Bhashyam, Sree Bhashyam, etc.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri.Sarma Sir, Greetings. Thanks for your inputs.

Sir, your words do not hurt me personally in anyway. How ever, I request you not to dismiss the discussions, even if they were 'show-offs'.

But it is a surprise for me that even though you say you have no great knowledge of philosophy, you also claim confidently in this post addressed to me, that "I have seen Brahmam many times; possibly would see many more times in the future."

I am humbled to note that you have read my previous messages. Thank you. Still I say, I have very limited knowledge in philosophy. Yes, I confidently claimed I have seen brahmam many times in the past; possibly would see many times in the future. It is true. What is experiencing of brahmam? It is experiencing of bliss (and sorrow too). When I wrote those words I have seen Brahmam in the past, I was thinkin about my mother serving me lunch when I was really starving. That satisfaction, that pleasure I felt when I was eating.... that was brahmam. (it was just an example. I narrated that example to you, because, I was thinking that example when I was typing the previous message to you).

We do not need not even know leave alone follow any philosophies to experience Brahmam. Brahmam is something that makes us feel content; that makes others feel content. Brahman may be spread all across the universe everywhere; but, our individual contacts are limited to the area we live, the people we meet everyday, everything affects us and everything affected by us. We can see brahmam in all these things if we open our minds.

354 messages are posted in this thread; but 'Maya' is not explained properly by anybody. It is too simple, that's why it deludes everyone.

Do you know how to swim? If you said 'no', then it is an illusion. We all know how to swim; Although we know how to swim, we 'think' we don't know how to swim and take swimming lessons 'to learn to swim'. How many places did you see this example for 'Maya'?

Advaita or dvaita do not instruct us charity. We open our lunch packet in a public place; if we see someone watching us, automatically we prepare ourselves to share our lunch. We are hungry, we expect others to be hungry too; we don't have to know any of the philosophies to show that kind of empathy.

Sankara, Ramanuja et al did not 'invent' brahmam. Before God was invented or identified, what ever the case may be, empathy and compassion must have been around. It is true, my writing is slightly misleading. Sounds as if these philosophies made such feelings possible. I admit, I must retract those words.

What I meant to say was, millions are benefitted through donations by people who see something in common with others. Such common factor only makes empathy and compassion possible.

I do not much about philosophies or vedanta. I cannot say what they say about rebirth or moksha. For me personally, moksha is here, on this earth, right now. I don't have much faith in reincarnation. I am not too keen about God concept either. My participation in this discussion did not get far enough to talk about 'Saguna Brahmam'; So, I did not have to talk about that subject. We can bring Moksha around us through our deeds. It may not be recognised or appriciated by others, even by family members. Still we can take the 'little moksha' with us every where we go.

Do I do that? Yes, I always try to do that; succeed lot of times.

My experiencing Brahmam is based on my personal experiences. I mentioned that already in other messages. So, I will not be able to substantiate my reply with scriptures. I am sorry. How ever, I am more than happy to discuss, more than happy to correct my mistakes.

Cheers!

 

[srinath24.7]

Hello brothers,
I have just joined this forum today. I like all of you wish to learn more about sanatan dharma. Coming to the point of "avidya being real to jivas and unreal to the Brahman", I think it can be explained by the 10 dimensions of string theory. YouTube - ‪The Dimensions Explained‬‏
If we interlink the is theory with the fact that Brahman is above all dimensions, then it could be proved the avidya is unreal to the Brahman. It would also prove how the Brahman is in one place, all places and in no place all at the same time. But jivas, who are aware only about the first 3 dimensions and not the above make avidya a reality.

I thought this would be an interesting way of looking at it.

 

[tks]

Shri tks sir,

I am happy that my post could evoke some laughter in you. This being a forum of (for) Tamil Brahmins, it is necessary that we think how many of us Tamil Brahmins give any consideration to "vedaantam" in our day-to-day lives; AFAIK, except the mantram starting with "vEdAnta vijnAna suniScitAtmA samnyAsa ...." recited at the time of neerAjanam, people do not bother whether it is dvaitam or advaitam. In a way we all live according to Saint Thyagarajar's song "dvaitamu sukhamaa advaitamu sukhama..." and go after "sukham" only. (I am twisting the Saint's kriti; may he pardon my mischief!). So, why should there be such protracted discussion on these topics?

I find that even the moderator who is generally a sleeping partner, suddenly woke up and came into the picture supporting the original poster and questioning the integrity of two or three veterans; result—these veterans have disappeared. Perhaps this is the example of maaya in advaitam

I found this quote about discussions which you may like:

Never argue with a fool or he will drag you down to his level and beat you at it through sheer experience!

Sri Sarma-ji -

LOL in reading your quote!

I think discussion about any topic is useful in my view if there is an exchange of information in the context of an attitude of learning with Shraddha.

I have come to discover a few great threads in this forum related to vedanta - for example the one started by Sri Saidevo under Philosophy section where he has been systematically describing his notes from the reading of a book (Science of Peace). I find the book (that can be downloaded) to be interesting and would not have found such a book except for the existence of this forum. So threads of such topics are great to make us think and find great resources in my limited experience.


There have been legitimate questions raised even in this thread that have very good answers. To engage in responding to such questions one would need the questioner in these occasions to be truly curious and not come across with a preconceived notions with an agenda, which was my sense.

There is one great reference by Smt Renu - a brief write up by Swami Dayananda of Rishikesh in this thread which alluded to many of the answers that some of the questioners were seeking in my view.

Let me now make a note about another point you made about some disappearing 'veterans;.

While this is no 'Jalra' support, my thought is that Moderator did not post here in that role initially but simply as another person wanting to engage in discussions.

I still do not understand what is the big deal if one says 'if you have integrity' .. It is a challenge all right but I would not have taken that as an insult. One can question the fellow poster (not as a moderator) for explanation and move on.

From Wikipedia : "Integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold". It is actually an inner value for a person and if one is perceived incorrectly by others it is possible to simply correct it without taking offense since the person knows they have 'integrity' which is not affected by anyone questioning or thinking otherwise.

Topic such as the one here deals with Sathyam or ultimate reality and the process of enquiry tend to make us very mature. Therefore it is an irony if one reviews the sequence of posts related to disappearing veterans.

In a open forum people may come and go. I expect these missing veterans to show up someday back again since this forum was providing a valuable opportunity for them to interact with others. If not my view is that it is not a loss or gain.

Regards

 

[kunjuppu]

'Never argue with a fool or he will drag you down to his level and beat you at it through sheer experience!'

i think this is among the most powerful of statements.

though it might be made in reference to others, i think, it is a pointer to the self. the person who is making this statement.

i would be very careful making this statement with the intent of pointing to others. for when we point one finger at others, the 3 others point back at us, and the thumb points up. indirectly, i think, mother wisdom cautions us, before pointing fingers at others.

peace.

 

[sarma-61]

Hello brothers,
I have just joined this forum today. I like all of you wish to learn more about sanatan dharma. Coming to the point of "avidya being real to jivas and unreal to the Brahman", I think it can be explained by the 10 dimensions of string theory. YouTube - ‪The Dimensions Explained‬‏
If we interlink the is theory with the fact that Brahman is above all dimensions, then it could be proved the avidya is unreal to the Brahman. It would also prove how the Brahman is in one place, all places and in no place all at the same time. But jivas, who are aware only about the first 3 dimensions and not the above make avidya a reality.

I thought this would be an interesting way of looking at it.

Shri Srinath sir,

A very wonderful video. But brahmins are like the proverbial donkey carrying saffron ! Many of us recite the millenia old "sa bhoomim viSvatO vRtvA atyatiShTaddaSAngulam" almost daily but have not understood what it meant right from those ancient days! And we are discussing philosophies here

That is why brahmins should first care to be brahmins. Thank you very much.

 

[sravna]

There were some posts which indicated to me that some members were disapproving of my arguments. They think they are just my beliefs. My explanation is that I was trying to present a fresh perspective on a subject which is not well understood. We know the old arguments and the old rebuttals. What is the point in discussing the same thing again and again? That is one of the main reasons I was not keen on the traditional method of debate.

I just wanted to be true to the spirit of the philosophy but present my very own interpretation of it. The idea is to discuss and see it in a new light so that we may dispel the seeming inscrutability that shrouds the philosophy. We are not going to lose anything but might gain some invaluable insight because of such discussions.

 

[sarma-61]

Sri Sarma-ji -

LOL in reading your quote!

I think discussion about any topic is useful in my view if there is an exchange of information in the context of an attitude of learning with Shraddha.

I have come to discover a few great threads in this forum related to vedanta - for example the one started by Sri Saidevo under Philosophy section where he has been systematically describing his notes from the reading of a book (Science of Peace). I find the book (that can be downloaded) to be interesting and would not have found such a book except for the existence of this forum. So threads of such topics are great to make us think and find great resources in my limited experience.


There have been legitimate questions raised even in this thread that have very good answers. To engage in responding to such questions one would need the questioner in these occasions to be truly curious and not come across with a preconceived notions with an agenda, which was my sense.

There is one great reference by Smt Renu - a brief write up by Swami Dayananda of Rishikesh in this thread which alluded to many of the answers that some of the questioners were seeking in my view.

Let me now make a note about another point you made about some disappearing 'veterans;.

While this is no 'Jalra' support, my thought is that Moderator did not post here in that role initially but simply as another person wanting to engage in discussions.

I still do not understand what is the big deal if one says 'if you have integrity' .. It is a challenge all right but I would not have taken that as an insult. One can question the fellow poster (not as a moderator) for explanation and move on.

From Wikipedia : "Integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold". It is actually an inner value for a person and if one is perceived incorrectly by others it is possible to simply correct it without taking offense since the person knows they have 'integrity' which is not affected by anyone questioning or thinking otherwise.

Topic such as the one here deals with Sathyam or ultimate reality and the process of enquiry tend to make us very mature. Therefore it is an irony if one reviews the sequence of posts related to disappearing veterans.

In a open forum people may come and go. I expect these missing veterans to show up someday back again since this forum was providing a valuable opportunity for them to interact with others. If not my view is that it is not a loss or gain.

Regards

Shri tks sir, I shall definitely look into the posts made by Shri Saidevo and Renu. I am not very much interested in, nor intelligent enough to grasp all these high philosophies. For people like me may be moksham is far far away, but we have no choice! My comments regarding some veterans disappearing, etc., were meant to be light-hearted (though I am not sure whether I have made a complete mess of it with my language command). What I felt, and still feel is that there is more sense in the Moderator's view viz., this forum has to safeguard brahmins, brahminism and whatever goes with that expression in the mind of any average brahmin. The discussion here about advaitham seems much of each person trying to show off his/her knowledge. I also found that the Supermoderator, who is generally not interfering, suddenly comes in and gives rise to a crisis. Normally moderators will know the pulse of the forum and their participation in the discussions will be such that it will not give rise to such abrupt happenings. These were the thoughts which gave rise to my comments. I am sorry if any of my remarks has gone against the forum rules/norms.

 

[sarma-61]

'Never argue with a fool or he will drag you down to his level and beat you at it through sheer experience!'

i think this is among the most powerful of statements.

though it might be made in reference to others, i think, it is a pointer to the self. the person who is making this statement.

i would be very careful making this statement with the intent of pointing to others. for when we point one finger at others, the 3 others point back at us, and the thumb points up. indirectly, i think, mother wisdom cautions us, before pointing fingers at others.

peace.

Shri Kunjuppu sir,

You are now beginning to show your fangs. This was given by me as a quote, which impressed me, though this did not come out clearly enough. So, as per your guidelines above, this may be a pointer to that eminent person who made this quotable quote.

And when you try to indirectly make it a point of pointing me out, it applies equally to you! Heard of "boomerang"?

 

[tks]

Shri tks sir, I shall definitely look into the posts made by Shri Saidevo and Renu. I am not very much interested in, nor intelligent enough to grasp all these high philosophies. For people like me may be moksham is far far away, but we have no choice! My comments regarding some veterans disappearing, etc., were meant to be light-hearted (though I am not sure whether I have made a complete mess of it with my language command). What I felt, and still feel is that there is more sense in the Moderator's view viz., this forum has to safeguard brahmins, brahminism and whatever goes with that expression in the mind of any average brahmin. The discussion here about advaitham seems much of each person trying to show off his/her knowledge. I also found that the Supermoderator, who is generally not interfering, suddenly comes in and gives rise to a crisis. Normally moderators will know the pulse of the forum and their participation in the discussions will be such that it will not give rise to such abrupt happenings. These were the thoughts which gave rise to my comments. I am sorry if any of my remarks has gone against the forum rules/norms.

Sri Sarma -

There is nothing to apologize in my view as to anything you have said!
Again Moderator is a person who is welcome to participate in sharing his thoughts as a fellow poster.
In his role as a moderator he did not make any controversial comments in my view.

I do agree that there is a general air of bashing a group like Brahmins promoted by a few vocal posters under the name of free expressions.
A forum cannot grow if it continues to allow such people to take up too much of the bandwidth. I was impressed by moderator's careful choice of actions to limit such behavior without overtly censoring anyone

Regards

 

[subbudu1]

The so-called brahmin bashers are highly knowledgeable members and as much belong to our culture. Sangom was one of the most knowledgeable members out here. Inspite of his old age the revered person shared his piece of mind. Many elders in my family are quite orthodox. A revered person was a strong believer in tradition doing puja for nothing less than a few hours every day. He however had polite discussions with unorthodox people and disbelievers in tradition. He never made a meaningless comment nor did he get provoked by strong questions. Needless to say those who argued with him, retained a great admiration for him and his wisdom. This man's death funeral was attended by many non brahmins who worked under him. One of them even took to heart that he was not informed of the death of this gentleman. Unless questions are asked and treated with respect a community cannot grow. Pretending to believe in tradition and advaita is of no help. People make genuine criticism and the wise man will treat these questions as though raised by innocent children. He will not show anger.

The other person was Nara. Having read his posts I can say that behind the irreverence of this gentleman, was a polite personality.

Not all believers really support tradition nor do non-believers become enemies of our tradition.

Your attitude tks is not good at all. I am continuing to post here only because Sangom asked me to continue.

<snipped>

 

[renuka]

Dear Raghy,

You will like this..I was just reading same book Rama Gita .

On awakening to Brahman,there is in fact no world to be rejected.Brahman is all-inclusive.
Vedanta rejects nothing,accepts everything but keeps nothing


As I read.. I will share what is relevant.

 

[subbudu1]

Is the orthodox brahmin really a friend of our community.

I was reading Subramaniam Swamy's article where he made a mention of T.N.Seshan and his mischievous ways. I was then reminded of my own experience.

In my first stint at Mumbai , there were two tambrams in my office in a team mostly comprised of Banga Babus. The chief was a Banga Babu. The two tambrams were a person I will call as pattai and the second is me.

This pattai was your typical orthodox man. Always with his religious mark shining prominently on his forehead. I would assume so too that he had no bad habits. I would assume so too that he must be really passionate about his culture and religion. Yet this man was scheming behind the back of others. His target was me . One of his favorite jobs was to spy on me and misreport to the chief. So much for the pretensions and the view that traditionalists are friends of the community.

There is this other pattai in a distant circle. I would like to emphasize the word distant because of his behavior with his wife. This pattai is really a pattai always to be seen with the mark on his forehead. The wife was almost always admonished for her stupidity, yet she was to be trampled upon. The lady made least protests of her sufferings. The wife did not wake up early in the morning so beat her. This mr pattai I heard is very fond of reading holy books. I am sure people might be there who might be impressed by his cleanliness and faith in tradition. Do they all know the real story?

There was this another funny episode as recalled by my brother. He was planning to make a deal based on his faith in a particular tambram. That tambram of course did represent himself as a faithful person.The concerned person knew that my brother was a brahmin all along. One fine day he came and asked my brother not to proceed with the deal. This person replied- I just now came to know you are from my village.My conscience does not allow me to cheat you for that reason.

There is this one another episode I would like to mention. A talented colleague of mine, coming from a very traditional family a good man no doubt and who also came up in life inspite of his humble beginnings. I was impressed by him - represented to me as an ideal man. He was always friendly with me. He once told me of our common friend- Do you know this guy eats meat and he does not follow regulations during shraddham. I did not comment . Many many years later I came to know this very colleague had a short affair with a loose woman. The woman might have trapped him but who asked him to let go of his senses. How much heartbroken would have been his wife if she had come to know of his acts. Yet this man had to criticize our harmless responsible friend( although with a few bad habits).

These are not unknown or infrequent stories. Such stories are I am sure known to many. It may almost seem like I am speaking of real characters they have actually met in their lives. Yet we have these so called artificial barriers of traditionalists and modernists as though they really belong to two different worlds. Many of these traditionalists will one day wake up to the reality of many who surround them.

I hope it is not too late before they realize that some of the modernists were never really their enemies.

 

[sarma-61]

Is the orthodox brahmin really a friend of our community.

I was reading Subramaniam Swamy's article where he made a mention of T.N.Seshan and his mischievous ways. I was then reminded of my own experience.

....

I hope it is not too late before they realize that some of the modernists were never really their enemies.

Shri Subbudu sir,

I was till now thinking that you write with cogent reasoning, but this post perhaps has let you down.

Agreed that there may be many people with bad traits among the orthodox and, many many very good persons among the unorthodox. But here the question is about the culture, customs, rites and rituals, beliefs and superstitions of the orthodox group which this forum wants to highlight, as I understand the public posting of the SM. Hence it is immaterial that the orthodox may be bad, even as a general rule and the unorthodox, all extremely good people, again as an inerrant law. Still if the forum admin wants to preserve for posterity what a group of bad orthodox brahmins followed, there is no escape from choosing the relevant items.

You must have heard of the "Criminal Tribes of India", a term coined by the British; the life and belief systems of these tribes have been exhaustively researched. Perhaps you may equate this forum with one such study of a "not good" group.

Coming to the examples cited by you - four in all, if my count is correct - can you say that unorthodox brahmins never scheme behind the back of their peer whom they feel is a potential threat to their career advancement? Can you say similarly about the other negatives? No, because these are basic human traits. Pattai or orthodoxy does not mean a certficate of sainthood, IMHO. And we here in this forum are not concerned with friends of brahmins but repositories of knowledge about brahminic customs.

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu sir,

I was till now thinking that you write with cogent reasoning, but this post perhaps has let you down.

Agreed that there may be many people with bad traits among the orthodox and, many many very good persons among the unorthodox. But here the question is about the culture, customs, rites and rituals, beliefs and superstitions of the orthodox group which this forum wants to highlight, as I understand the public posting of the SM. Hence it is immaterial that the orthodox may be bad, even as a general rule and the unorthodox, all extremely good people, again as an inerrant law. Still if the forum admin wants to preserve for posterity what a group of bad orthodox brahmins followed, there is no escape from choosing the relevant items.

You must have heard of the "Criminal Tribes of India", a term coined by the British; the life and belief systems of these tribes have been exhaustively researched. Perhaps you may equate this forum with one such study of a "not good" group.

Coming to the examples cited by you - four in all, if my count is correct - can you say that unorthodox brahmins never scheme behind the back of their peer whom they feel is a potential threat to their career advancement? Can you say similarly about the other negatives? No, because these are basic human traits. Pattai or orthodoxy does not mean a certficate of sainthood, IMHO. And we here in this forum are not concerned with friends of brahmins but repositories of knowledge about brahminic customs.

I am not saying all orthodox are bad. That is why I said the divsion between the orthodox and modernists is artificial. I have many friends among the orthodox as among ultra modernists. But the way discussions have been proceeding in this forum it would seem that the modernists are bashers of brahmins. There may be few individuals who hate the community. But having read Sangom and Nara's posts I dont think that is the case. I personally dont hate the orthodox.

It is my general experience that many orthodox get irritated with modernists and quite often feel that the modernists are their enemies. Critics they might be, unreasonable in case of a few, but not everyone is an opponent of this community. My intention to highlight these 4 cases is to remind the orthodox that not all of their ideological brothers mean well. If they extend their hand of friendship they will realize that some of the modernists are not as bad as some of their ideological brothers. That attitude should have come across in this forum. But quite often it does not seem to be the case.

 

[Nara]

... I personally dont hate the orthodox. .

Dear Subbudu sir, the fact of the matter is, even though I think the orthodox are misguided by the indoctrination of the traditional system -- BTW, the indoctrinators themselves are victims of such indoctrination from their previous generation -- they at least pay the price of hard life orthodoxy entails. In other words, they are not hypocrites and that must be appreciated.

On the other hand, my contempt is reserved for the weekend orthodoxy, the ones who hobnob in 5* hotels snobbishly refusing to nurse a cocktail, but put on a kaccham, very badly I might add with the ugly undergarment showing, and acting as if they are the very symbols of orthodoxy, the me-too orthodoxy type.

IMO, the true orthodoxy are not at all irritated by the modernists, all they want is to be left to their own devices. It is the wannabe orthodoxy who take offense when questions are raised. To them, asking questions is itself so threatening that they have to attack the questioners. They have no cogent answers so they engage in all that they can, ad hominem attacks.

Cheers!

 

[Brahin]

Dear Subbudu sir, the fact of the matter is, even though I think the orthodox are misguided by the indoctrination of the traditional system -- BTW, the indoctrinators themselves are victims of such indoctrination from their previous generation -- they at least pay the price of hard life orthodoxy entails. In other words, they are not hypocrites and that must be appreciated.

On the other hand, my contempt is reserved for the weekend orthodoxy, the ones who hobnob in 5* hotels snobbishly refusing to nurse a cocktail, but put on a kaccham, very badly I might add with the ugly undergarment showing, and acting as if they are the very symbols of orthodoxy, the me-too orthodoxy type.

IMO, the true orthodoxy are not at all irritated by the modernists, all they want is to be left to their own devices. It is the wannabe orthodoxy who take offense when questions are raised. To them, asking questions is itself so threatening that they have to attack the questioners. They have no cogent answers so they engage in all that they can, ad hominem attacks.

Cheers!

Dear Nara ji,

You are correct only..For orthodox people anyone not like them is Maya only..so dont worry..in their eyes even you dont exists.

Cheers...

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Subbudu sir, the fact of the matter is, even though I think the orthodox are misguided by the indoctrination of the traditional system -- BTW, the indoctrinators themselves are victims of such indoctrination from their previous generation -- they at least pay the price of hard life orthodoxy entails. In other words, they are not hypocrites and that must be appreciated.

On the other hand, my contempt is reserved for the weekend orthodoxy, the ones who hobnob in 5* hotels snobbishly refusing to nurse a cocktail, but put on a kaccham, very badly I might add with the ugly undergarment showing, and acting as if they are the very symbols of orthodoxy, the me-too orthodoxy type.

IMO, the true orthodoxy are not at all irritated by the modernists, all they want is to be left to their own devices. It is the wannabe orthodoxy who take offense when questions are raised. To them, asking questions is itself so threatening that they have to attack the questioners. They have no cogent answers so they engage in all that they can, ad hominem attacks.

Cheers!

You are probably right. The wannabe orthodox are most driven by insecurity.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Nara ji,

You are correct only..For orthodox people anyone not like them is Maya only..so dont worry..in their eyes even you dont exists.

Cheers...

Among the smarthas the people who qualify to be orthodox( as per Nara's definition) are our orthdox vadhiyars and vedic scholars. Very few of them are strict about Advaita, though they may be patronized by one or more shankaracharyas. They may believe in Advaita but not many are fanatic about it. Many of them I understand even visit the discourses of Sri Vaishnavas. To the average smartha orthodox or not so orthodox, advaita is just like a Kalyana Sapadu- to be had once a while. The orthodox live in the world of duality. So I dont think many are worried about maya. Adi Shankaracharya is more of a God the avatara of Shiva , to the average orthodox mind.

Infact I may be wrong here, but nothing wrong to think aloud. Among the followers of the two Shankara mutt- Kanchi and Sringeri, I have seen more serious discussions on the intricacies of advaita being discussed by the Sringeri mutt acharyas and his erudite disciples. Deep and logical discussions and debate are not so very common in the kanchi environment. However the Kanchi mutt spends a lot of time educating people in the intricacies of rituals , vedam recital , agamas, temple worship , orthodox living etc. The other difference I have seen is that the Sringeri mutt promotes the questioning of concepts related to advaita, although in a reverential manner. Just to add not to hurt any devotee, it may be because Sringeri mutt is supposed to specialize in debates.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Raghy,

You will like this..I was just reading same book Rama Gita .

On awakening to Brahman,there is in fact no world to be rejected.Brahman is all-inclusive.
Vedanta rejects nothing,accepts everything but keeps nothing

As I read.. I will share what is relevant.

Sowbagyavathy dear Renuka, Greetings.

Vedanta is a branch of study or enquiry. Vedanta by itself is not going to accept or reject anything; it is the person who accepts or rejects.

Since Brahman is all inclusive, Brahman can be realised only through inclusion, not through rejection. I think, Brahman can be experienced through physical senses too. It is only my opinion though; I haven't any evidence.

Cheers!