You need more than a brain to understand values

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sangom Sir,

I do remember reading somewhere that the Mahabharata was lengthened a few times or during different centuries perhaps, like the Vedas.

As for Vaishnavizing it, it has definitely worked, wouldn't you say, especially looking at Vaishnavism as a whole in Hinduism and even in Tambrahms. I wonder who that brilliant mind(s)
were? Just out of curiosity before this Vaishnavazing wasn't Vishnu acceptable to the brāhmaṇādayaḥ? Were they Smartha/Shaivite elites?

We all know that "history is written by the victors" and thet "might is right". I can't place my finger on why but i was always drawn to Karna's and Drona's characters as opposed to the Pandavas. Completely random but I wonder why South Indian itihasas never took off the way Mahabharata et al have. This Hastinapur cousin thing battles and war mongering still happens today in those places up north. Fighting with relatives/cousins for land etc. Perhaps Mahabharata is a cultural reflection of some parts of the sub continent. Only thing is that they don't fight for dharma now.


Prasad Sir,

I agree with you. The beauty of our faith is that we are free to express and believe in whatever philosophy we choose to.

Kum. Amala,

I am very thankful to you for having found the time to write a reply. I agree that in hinduism we all are free to hold any opinion on any topic relating to the religion. But in a forum like this, named as Tamilbrahmins.com, it is usually found that the age-old accepted opinions alone are considered valid and anything which differs as blasphemy. But strange interpretations like those lately being expressed on Ganapati are admired!

I feel that after 70 years of freedom and equality irrespective of caste, creed, etc., we are slowly, but inevitably approaching an era in which people will start thinking 'out of the box' and just as the old Mr. Ram Jethmalani said a few days ago that he finds Rama to be a bad husband, our scriptures will be viewed and analyzed from fresh and unexplored angles, by the coming generations. Martin Luther came after more than 1500 years to question the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, but in the case of hinduism it may take just 100 years of independence, perhaps.

Coming to 'vaishnavaization' and your pertinent doubts, from my readings, I have found that the vedic hinduism centred on sacrifices (yajnas, as they were called) came under severe criticism from both Buddha and Mahavira. When Emperor Asoka embraced Buddhism and promulgated kindness to animals (severe punishment for people deliberately causing harm to animals is found in the Asoka edicts) most probably this vedic hinduism must have reached a nadir. Then when Pushyamitra Sunga, a samavedi brahmin assassinated brihadratha, the last Mauryan emperor while he was making an army review (rings a bell? Rajiv Gandhi!) and immediately on assuming the throne, Pushyamitra performed a majestic Ashvamedha Yajna thus signalling that the vedic hinduism had been re-instated as the State religion. The Sunga dynasty ruled for about 110 years but, by then the Brahmin vedists must have realized that their yajna-centred religion could come under opposition once again if the next ruler adopted Buddhism/Jainism. But, at the same time, these vedists knew only their vedic religion and the vedic gods like agni, indra, rudra, varuna, etc. They hitched upon "upendra" or a side-kick of indra in the rigveda - vishnu, as the new divinity which could be moulded so that the population which had gone to follow Buddhism could be garnered back. With this purpose those brahmin vedists did three things, imho:

1. Build up the obscure vishnu of the rigveda into a 'larger-than life' Supreme God.

2. Borrow the idea of many births of the Buddha, from the Buddhist belief system, modify it and turn it into "avataaras" of Vishnu; incidentally the brahmanda purana, bhagavata purana etc., refer to Buddha and by the 8th. century the vedic (hindu) orthodoxy accepted Jayadeva's statement in his Geeta Govinda, that Buddha was indeed an avatar of Vishnu.

3. Create new redactions of the stories which probably had maximum popularity like the Raamakatha or the Bhaarata and give a workover on these stories to project the two characters Rama and Krishna as avataaras of Vishnu. BTW, the vaalmeekiraamaayana (some versions/editions) contain the following sloka:

ततः समभवद् ब्रह्मा स्वयंभूर्देवतैः सह ।
स वराहस्ततो भूत्वा प्रोज्जहार वसुन्धराम् ॥
असृजश्च जगत्सर्वं सह पुत्रैः कृतात्मभिः ॥
—अयोध्या, ११०-३,४

tataḥ samabhavad brahmā svayaṃbhūrdevataiḥ saha |
sa varāhastato bhūtvā projjahāra vasundharām ||
asṛjaśca jagatsarvaṃ saha putraiḥ kṛtātmabhiḥ ||
-ayodhyā, 110-3,4

Thus the very Ramayana admits that the varāha avatar was taken by Brahma and not by Vishnu. This goes to strengthen the doubt that the Dasaavataara of Vishnu is a later invention.

Fortunately, there was a religious belief centred around a deity known as மால், மாயோன், all indicative of a dark coloured person and this religious movement spread, in course of time through the eastern and the western corridors of the sub-continent towards north. The northern brahmins lost no time in making suitable changes to the Krishna character of M. Bh. and for this purpose, composed the Harivamsa Purana. But as the text did not find much favour with the general population, which, by then had probably been more attracted to the tantric buddhism and the worship of Krishna-Radha duo, the Brahma vaivarta purana was composed; and for those who did not like the themes of Radha-Krishna love, the Bhagavata was written.

There will be no takers for these opinions today, because people somehow are happy to believe that one person, Sage Vyasa composed all these texts and that all of them have been existing ab initio. But I would like to go on record with what I sincerely hold as the best probability.

I hope it will be clear to you now that before this vaishnavaization, only the vedic form of worship existed and it did not have idol worship as its integral or central part. This Vaishnavaization helped the people move away from the sacrifice-centred vedic belief system to an idol-worshipping creed which did not need killing animals and so could win over even the small amount of hesitation in the minds of the people who might by then have been following Buddhism/Jainism for a few generations, to come back to the parentfold.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Allow me to reply to your post addressed to Amala.

1) Does it matter whether mahabaratha was a group effort or an individual effort?
2) The pandavas were the heroes because the concept of dharma was exemplified through them unlike a Rajini film where Rajini is the hero and so all that he did was dharma.
3) Ego is indeed relevant in one's life. We can say that maya operates through the ego. If one does not like the word evil, one can call it spiritual ignorance.

Dear Sravna,

My comments to your 3 points are as under:

1. Did I say so?

2.Can it not be said that the composer/s first fixed in their mind that Pandavas should be the heros and so, out of sheer necessity, they tried to justify all the actions of the Pandavas as Dharma? We have no historical evidence to prove that there lived a group of 5 brothers who were considered to be the epitome of Dharma. In short a slight change of Rajni film; instead of one Rajni, there are 5 +Krishna who is there to effectively silence any discriminating questions. This is my view please.

3.I will prefer to say that ego is itself the maayaa. spiritual ignorance is not evil; there are many so-called babas, gurus, swamijis and aacharyas whose actions are not all above board but these people are successful in getting the adulation of a large number of gullible followers who regard these babas, gurus, swamijis and aacharyas as the last word in spirituality. And, spiritual ignorance really means not having knowledge of the spirit or Brahman, and that if evil, is very much present in all of us, despite our small or big egos, imho.

 

[sravna]

Kum. Amala,

I am very thankful to you for having found the time to write a reply. I agree that in hinduism we all are free to hold any opinion on any topic relating to the religion. But in a forum like this, named as Tamilbrahmins.com, it is usually found that the age-old accepted opinions alone are considered valid and anything which differs as blasphemy. But strange interpretations like those lately being expressed on Ganapati are admired!

I feel that after 70 years of freedom and equality irrespective of caste, creed, etc., we are slowly, but inevitably approaching an era in which people will start thinking 'out of the box' and just as the old Mr. Ram Jethmalani said a few days ago that he finds Rama to be a bad husband, our scriptures will be viewed and analyzed from fresh and unexplored angles, by the coming generations. Martin Luther came after more than 1500 years to question the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, but in the case of hinduism it may take just 100 years of independence, perhaps.

Coming to 'vaishnavaization' and your pertinent doubts, from my readings, I have found that the vedic hinduism centred on sacrifices (yajnas, as they were called) came under severe criticism from both Buddha and Mahavira. When Emperor Asoka embraced Buddhism and promulgated kindness to animals (severe punishment for people deliberately causing harm to animals is found in the Asoka edicts) most probably this vedic hinduism must have reached a nadir. Then when Pushyamitra Sunga, a samavedi brahmin assassinated brihadratha, the last Mauryan emperor while he was making an army review (rings a bell? Rajiv Gandhi!) and immediately on assuming the throne, Pushyamitra performed a majestic Ashvamedha Yajna thus signalling that the vedic hinduism had been re-instated as the State religion. The Sunga dynasty ruled for about 110 years but, by then the Brahmin vedists must have realized that their yajna-centred religion could come under opposition once again if the next ruler adopted Buddhism/Jainism. But, at the same time, these vedists knew only their vedic religion and the vedic gods like agni, indra, rudra, varuna, etc. They hitched upon "upendra" or a side-kick of indra in the rigveda - vishnu, as the new divinity which could be moulded so that the population which had gone to follow Buddhism could be garnered back. With this purpose those brahmin vedists did three things, imho:

1. Build up the obscure vishnu of the rigveda into a 'larger-than life' Supreme God.

2. Borrow the idea of many births of the Buddha, from the Buddhist belief system, modify it and turn it into "avataaras" of Vishnu; incidentally the brahmanda purana, bhagavata purana etc., refer to Buddha and by the 8th. century the vedic (hindu) orthodoxy accepted Jayadeva's statement in his Geeta Govinda, that Buddha was indeed an avatar of Vishnu.

3. Create new redactions of the stories which probably had maximum popularity like the Raamakatha or the Bhaarata and give a workover on these stories to project the two characters Rama and Krishna as avataaras of Vishnu. BTW, the vaalmeekiraamaayana (some versions/editions) contain the following sloka:

ततः समभवद् ब्रह्मा स्वयंभूर्देवतैः सह ।
स वराहस्ततो भूत्वा प्रोज्जहार वसुन्धराम् ॥
असृजश्च जगत्सर्वं सह पुत्रैः कृतात्मभिः ॥
—अयोध्या, ११०-३,४

tataḥ samabhavad brahmā svayaṃbhūrdevataiḥ saha |
sa varāhastato bhūtvā projjahāra vasundharām ||
asṛjaśca jagatsarvaṃ saha putraiḥ kṛtātmabhiḥ ||
-ayodhyā, 110-3,4

Thus the very Ramayana admits that the varāha avatar was taken by Brahma and not by Vishnu. This goes to strengthen the doubt that the Dasaavataara of Vishnu is a later invention.

Fortunately, there was a religious belief centred around a deity known as மால், மாயோன், all indicative of a dark coloured person and this religious movement spread, in course of time through the eastern and the western corridors of the sub-continent towards north. The northern brahmins lost no time in making suitable changes to the Krishna character of M. Bh. and for this purpose, composed the Harivamsa Purana. But as the text did not find much favour with the general population, which, by then had probably been more attracted to the tantric buddhism and the worship of Krishna-Radha duo, the Brahma vaivarta purana was composed; and for those who did not like the themes of Radha-Krishna love, the Bhagavata was written.

There will be no takers for these opinions today, because people somehow are happy to believe that one person, Sage Vyasa composed all these texts and that all of them have been existing ab initio. But I would like to go on record with what I sincerely hold as the best probability.

I hope it will be clear to you now that before this vaishnavaization, only the vedic form of worship existed and it did not have idol worship as its integral or central part. This Vaishnavaization helped the people move away from the sacrifice-centred vedic belief system to an idol-worshipping creed which did not need killing animals and so could win over even the small amount of hesitation in the minds of the people who might by then have been following Buddhism/Jainism for a few generations, to come back to the parentfold.

I wish I had the ability to read the motives of people like Shri.Sangom can. I don't understand why we cant stop ascribing such motives and even try to pass it off as the best probability. If Shri.Sangom can find so much of negativism in our past, I am really in awe of him. But what is perplexing is that he shows unrestrained praise for the west and has great admiration for their qualities, at least so it seems to me.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

My comments to your 3 points are as under:

1. Did I say so?

2.Can it not be said that the composer/s first fixed in their mind that Pandavas should be the heros and so, out of sheer necessity, they tried to justify all the actions of the Pandavas as Dharma? We have no historical evidence to prove that there lived a group of 5 brothers who were considered to be the epitome of Dharma. In short a slight change of Rajni film; instead of one Rajni, there are 5 +Krishna who is there to effectively silence any discriminating questions. This is my view please.

3.I will prefer to say that ego is itself the maayaa. spiritual ignorance is not evil; there are many so-called babas, gurus, swamijis and aacharyas whose actions are not all above board but these people are successful in getting the adulation of a large number of gullible followers who regard these babas, gurus, swamijis and aacharyas as the last word in spirituality. And, spiritual ignorance really means not having knowledge of the spirit or Brahman, and that if evil, is very much present in all of us, despite our small or big egos, imho.

Dear Shri Sangom,

1. The point is when you write a story you first create the big picture and you convey what you wanted to convey through your characters. I am sure Vyasa would have had his idea of dharma before he conceived the characters of the pandavas. I think that's how it works.

2. Do you think we will commit evil deeds if we have the knowledge of brahman?

No doubt all of us, except the realized souls have at least some of that ignorance. Otherwise we will have little interest in the worldly pursuits.

 

[ozone]

But in a forum like this, named as Tamilbrahmins.com, it is usually found that the age-old accepted opinions alone are considered valid and anything which differs as blasphemy.

Whether we want to consider them alone to be valid is an interpretation. However, some us do not want to dismiss them as easily as some of them out here wants to us to, just based on their as yet unsubstantiated if not inappropriate explanation or justification.

But strange interpretations like those lately being expressed on Ganapati are admired!

'being accommodated' might perhaps be the case. I do it for: one, it appears much more positive and less detrimental than the other so called radical interpretations that have less likelihood to provide any usefulness (to me)

 

[renuka]

2. Do you think we will commit evil deeds if we have the knowledge of brahman?

Dear Sravna,

Where does the question of committing deeds arise in one who is the Knower of Brahman?

A Knower of Brahman has either become Brahman or is a Jeevan Muktha who is working out his Prarabhada that does not bind him anymore.

So what deeds are you actually talking about here?

 

[amala]

Shri Sangom,

I would like to know why the vedist decided to Vaishnavize instead of Shaivizing? My chronology of events is a bit shaky but surely these dynasties like the Sunga etc were after Adi Shankara and so I would have thought he would have left such a impression on Vedists, which is why I'm surprised they went with the Vaishnavizing instead of Shaivizing.

I guess one positive thing in all this is that it shows our Sanatana Dharma is very adaptable, flexible and can change with the times which is important for continued existence.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Where does the question of committing deeds arise in one who is the Knower of Brahman?

A Knower of Brahman has either become Brahman or is a Jeevan Muktha who is working out his Prarabhada that does not bind him anymore.

So what deeds are you actually talking about here?

OK dear Renuka, the point is, I was trying show evil and spiritual knowledge as opposing. Actually, I think you can commit a deed but one that doesn't carry a reaction because it is perfectly balanced in itself?

 

[renuka]

OK dear Renuka, the point is, I was trying show evil and spiritual knowledge as opposing. Actually, I think you can commit a deed but one that doesn't carry a reaction because it is perfectly balanced in itself?

Dear Sravna,

As long we are seeing the world thru the lenses of duality we will see things as pairs of opposite.
This itself is subjective cos what is evil for one is goodness for another and vice versa.

For every deed there is a reaction but it is just that we should not attach desire for it.

Geeta says "Ma Phaleshu Kadacana"

Ma in this context means Not to hanker for the fruits of one's action.

The verse did not say "Na Phaleshu Kadacana" which will mean No fruits of action.

Get the subtle difference?

There is reaction for every action but the one who does not hanker for the reaction(fruits) gets bestowed with blessings that does not bind him in a Karmic debt.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

As long we are seeing the world thru the lenses of duality we will see things as pairs of opposite.
This itself is subjective cos what is evil for one is goodness for another and vice versa.

For every deed there is a reaction but it is just that we should not attach desire for it.

Geeta says "Ma Phaleshu Kadacana"

Ma in this context means Not to hanker for the fruits of one's action.

The verse did not say "Na Phaleshu Kadacana" which will mean No fruits of action.

Get the subtle difference?

There is reaction for every action but the one who does not hanker for the reaction(fruits) gets bestowed with blessings that does not bind him in a Karmic debt.

Dear Renuka,

As long as we are in the physical world, physical perception will happen. But the real perception by the self can well be the Reality. That is what should really matter. And also the advice to not hanker after the fruits makes sense only for the evolving souls.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

ma phaleshu kadachana - means it is not simply in one hands the " result of action " that's all.
one still can hanker for a desired result .. what's the problem ?

kadamaiai chei palanai ethiparkarthe - is wrong.

kadamaiyil unnakku athikaram ullathu annal athan palanil unnakku adhikaram illai. - is the right meaning.

Take the above example - I can explain meaning of the above sentence umpteen times but the meaning may not be understood by others exactly what I desired, in other words, I've full control in my action but I cannot control the result of the action the result is simply not in my hand.

my mother used to say " nalluthaiyum ethirparkkanaum " what are the four :

the result may come much better than what we desired. (some one in support of the above Bhagavat geeta statement explains more lucidly with quotes and stories and you learn more topics and ideas )
the result is equal to what we desired. (you exactly understood what i meant)
the result is not what we desired. (you didn't understand )
the result is much contrary to what we desired.(not only you didn't understand , you also go very argumentative and fixative about not accepting my meaning and engage in personal attack on me).

My mother say I've to expect all the four possibilities before i venture into any action , since the results are not in my hand.

that's what " ma paleshu kadachana" meant.

My last attempt.

 

[sangom]

Shri Sangom,

I would like to know why the vedist decided to Vaishnavize instead of Shaivizing? My chronology of events is a bit shaky but surely these dynasties like the Sunga etc were after Adi Shankara and so I would have thought he would have left such a impression on Vedists, which is why I'm surprised they went with the Vaishnavizing instead of Shaivizing.

I guess one positive thing in all this is that it shows our Sanatana Dharma is very adaptable, flexible and can change with the times which is important for continued existence.

Kum. amala,

The Sunga empire lasted during 185 BC - 75 BC (as per wikipedia). Since this dynasty usurped power from the last of the Mauryan emperors, it looks to me that even allowing 100 or 200 years of inaccuracy, Adi Shankara (788-820 AD is the accepted date; although the Kanchi mutt records will place him some 2000 years or so earlier, before Christ, even the Sringeri mutt has not supported this date.) was definitely much later.

Vedists might have picked on Vishnu because vishnu was a constant companion of indra in the rigveda and, already there seems to have been some sort of worship of vasudeva (vaasudeva?) by a sect named bhaagavata as early as the time of Alexander. This vaasudeva had already been adsorbed into the changing vedic belief system and we have the following evidences:

Panini's aṣṭādhyāyī has perhaps the earliest reference to vāsudeva (vāsudevārjunābhyāṃ vun, it says in one rule IV-3-98). There is a column (pillar) in Besnagar near Vidisha (M.P.) in which there is a reference to Heliodorus, the greek ambassador of the Indo-Greek king Antialcidas, as a devotee of वासुदेव, the 'god of gods'. It therefore appears that this already existing vāsudeva cult must have been taken up by the mainstream vedists even in the time of Chandragupta though these vāsudeva cultists must have been only in the fringes of the vedic society in those days. Going by the fact that Heliodorus was also considered as one of these vāsudeva cult people, we cannot also say whether this was accepted by the brahmins.

Side by side with the vedas, it looks as though there also were the nascent cults based on Tantra. There was a well-developed Kashmir Saivism and Kaula Tantra had also taken shape there. (You have Kashmiri "Kauls" from this term Kula in Tantric practice.) For a people who were fed on the vedic sacrificial religion, the Tantric form of worship might have afforded a pleasant change, because, it did not require years of study of the vedas and so everyone could practice it; then again Tantra worship revolves ultimately around "parakeeya" love or finding the ultimate bliss and knowledge through sexual union with another man's wife, and this also must have been sort of adventurous excursion for many!

Tantric cults centred around Siva, Devi or Kali etc., had already formed in the North and people were possibly aware of these in a very general way. Hence, adoptng Siva as the new "God of Gods" might have harmed the cause of the vedists because their existing adherents would have been dead against it. Even so, we find that the Rudra (one who howls loudly) of Rigveda metamorphosing to some kind of Supreme God by the Time of Yajurveda and we have the most famous anuvaakas on Rudra therein.

Vishnu must therefore have been the first choice of the vedists. But, in course of time there emerged Tantric Vaishnavism, particularly in Bengal and the Radha-Krishna cult today is the present form of that Tantric Vaishnavism.

There was no "sanatana" Dharma, imho. People in each age believed certain things to be good, laudable or Dharma and some other things as bad, to be avoided and hence "adharma". If we go along with the conservatives who hold the scriptures in high esteem and further say that those should not be viewed as compositions by one or more people, etc., may have to agree to the M. Bh. saying that Uddalaka Aarunee, single-handedly stopped the unrestrained sexual freedom (freedom to mate) which was enjoyed by women in general in the previous yugas.

 

[sangom]

I wish I had the ability to read the motives of people like Shri.Sangom can. I don't understand why we cant stop ascribing such motives and even try to pass it off as the best probability. If Shri.Sangom can find so much of negativism in our past, I am really in awe of him. But what is perplexing is that he shows unrestrained praise for the west and has great admiration for their qualities, at least so it seems to me.

My dear sravna,

I do not believe that all our scriptures (barring the three vedas, rik, yajus and saama — I am not that familiar with Atharva veda, so no opinion) have been written by selfless author/s for selfless aims like universal welfare, and so on. May be this is the way my brain works. I am writing down my views here not with the purpose of changing anybody's belief system into that of mine but simply because Shri Praveen has so far not objected to airing of such views. The moment he says such unacceptable views are not allowed, I shall definitely withdraw, probably from this Forum itself.

I cannot however agree with your observation that ascribing motive is not ascribing possibility especially when we talk of things of long ago. Nor do I think that I am talking 'negativism' in the true sense, as such; but I concede that my opinions may sound negative w.r.t. yours. To call your views alone as positive and anything opposite to those as "negativism" is imho indicative of a kind of zealotry. Even the great Acharyas like Samkara, Ramanuja did not consider that views not agreeing with theirs were all negative; on the contrary they did their best to provide counter-arguments and thus score a win over their opponents. In your case it seems to me that you have no logical facts in support of your (positive) beliefs or against my (negativist) arguments except that you ardently believe in certain things.

I also cannot agree to your observation that I "show unrestrained praise for the west and has great admiration for their qualities" in regard to their religion, scriptures or practices. But, yes, I do say that I admire the West for all that their science, technology and inventive ability, the ability to think "out of the box", etc., have given to the world. Some of these are very good and laudable but too much of these things seem to be proving counter-productive; some of their contributions like the Bombs are completely evil and not good for mankind. Today, our people (including youngsters from orthodox Tabra households) are rushing towards the West (US, UK, Germany, Sweden, etc.) as immigrants because prosperity is in those countries not in ours. We may praise our scriptures, vyaasa, bhagavadgeeta, krishna, dharma/adharma etc., but for earning in Dollars and Pounds, one has to come down and acknowledge the superiority of the west and do service for the white masters. Is this not the bare truth?

Kindly reflect and try to modulate your outbursts against me; if you have any logical complaint against my views, kindly come out with such logic but not such exhortation for others to jump on me.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

I agree that in hinduism we all are free to hold any opinion on any topic relating to the religion. But in a forum like this, named as Tamilbrahmins.com, it is usually found that the age-old accepted opinions alone are considered valid and anything which differs as blasphemy. But strange interpretations like those lately being expressed on Ganapati are admired!

Is this some sort of pre-emptive strike that is conjured so that you can get your points across unfettered?

As far as I am aware, criticsim of vedic religion, vedists, brahmins of past, present, and future, hindu gods including Krishna and Rama, hindu epics - Ramayana and Mahabharatha, have always been allowed in this forum.

On the other hand, if one were to comment against buddha (eg., HRHK comments on anguli maal story) or shirdi sai or islam, then things are not hunky dory anymore.

Goes to show who is tolerant and who are not!

 

[amala]

On the other hand, if one were to comment against buddha (eg., HRHK comments on anguli maal story) or shirdi sai or islam, then things are not hunky dory anymore.

Goes to show who is tolerant and who are not!

I unfortunately had experienced this first hand this morning and your post reminded me of the Shirdi thread, which lo behold , i go to look for it and..well well well, what do you know! Its vanished. I am very disappointed as the OP had some valid doubts. Whatever "gods" one questions one cannot get away questioning the Sai babas. I only learnt that today.

 

[sangom]

I unfortunately had experienced this first hand this morning and your post reminded me of the Shirdi thread, which lo behold , i go to look for it and..well well well, what do you know! Its vanished. I am very disappointed as the OP had some valid doubts. Whatever "gods" one questions one cannot get away questioning the Sai babas. I only learnt that today.

Kum amala,

I am sorry to bother you with so many posts in one day. When I read that post on Saibaba of Sheerdi before lunch today, I started typing a response. But then it became lunch time and after lunch it is difficult for me to type till after a nap. This afternoon there was some distraction, the electricity board people were digging very close to our water connection and so I had to be present there to see that those people do not damage the water pipe! when finally I typed the post and searched for the OP, it had gone. Anyway, even an agnostic like myself, has great regard and respect for the Shirdi Sai Baba. I give below my intended post. Your questions, doubts, etc., are welcome.

"Hi greatness_sai,

So, you seem to be comfortable with the "sai" part of the hermit of Sheerdi, but have lifted some contents against His "Baba" aspect. Shirdi saibaba (SSB for short) lived up till the year 1918 as per wikipedia and as per what I have heard from other sources also, He lived right into the 20th. century.

I am a smarta, yajurvedi, brahmin. Though I follow some of the maxims listed in your post, like

"Believe nothing merely because you have been told it or because it is traditional or because you yourself have imagined it.
Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for teacher.
But whatever,after due examination and analysis you find to the conducive to the God,the benefit, the welfare of the all beings that doctrine believe and cling to take it as your guide ."

But I respect Sheerdi Sai Baba though I have not yet gone there or nor worshipped. My respect towards SSB is because He never came out for recognition or fame or money but it was people and incidents which made him so popular or respected. SSB did not take the first opportunity to go either to UK or USA and establish a "Yoga center" somewhere in LA or UK, nor did he talk about Bhagavadgita or Ramayana or other texts. I think his only refrain was "Allah Maalik" or "Shraddah aur saburi". Do not people generally believe in a creator God? If someone calls Him as Allah what objection is there as long as we are not told to follow the customs and practices of another religion, as a sequel to that?

I concede your freedom to criticize SSB, directly or indirectly by furnishing some material from elsewhere. But Saibaba of Sheerdi will continue to evoke respect and reverence even from agnostics like myself."

 

[sangom]

Is this some sort of pre-emptive strike that is conjured so that you can get your points across unfettered?

As far as I am aware, criticsim of vedic religion, vedists, brahmins of past, present, and future, hindu gods including Krishna and Rama, hindu epics - Ramayana and Mahabharatha, have always been allowed in this forum.

On the other hand, if one were to comment against buddha (eg., HRHK comments on anguli maal story) or shirdi sai or islam, then things are not hunky dory anymore.

Goes to show who is tolerant and who are not!

Shri KB,

I did not at all consider those words as pre-emptive strike. As you will see I was trying only to tell what is considered blasphemy and what is not. But I did not find anyone making any criticism of the b*ll s**t that was written as 'modern' explanation of the verses about Ganapathy. That made me sort of wonder where all the usual zealots had disappeared !
Perhaps in the near future we will have a replica of the human brain installed in the Garbhagrihas of all Pillaiyar Kovils, including "arasa marattaDi"!

I was not happy about the opposition to the angulimal story myself. Hence it will not be correct on my part to say anything more here. But that and today's Shirdi Sai are the only instances and in both none including myself had written anything against. So, I think you have some kind of coloured glasses.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Shri KB,

I did not at all consider those words as pre-emptive strike. As you will see I was trying only to tell what is considered blasphemy and what is not. But I did not find anyone making any criticism of the b*ll s**t that was written as 'modern' explanation of the verses about Ganapathy. That made me sort of wonder where all the usual zealots had disappeared !
Perhaps in the near future we will have a replica of the human brain installed in the Garbhagrihas of all Pillaiyar Kovils, including "arasa marattaDi"!

I was not happy about the opposition to the angulimal story myself. Hence it will not be correct on my part to say anything more here. But that and today's Shirdi Sai are the only instances and in both none including myself had written anything against. So, I think you have some kind of coloured glasses.

Sangomji, I want to clarify one thing. I did not imply that YOU are happy with criticizing some but not others. Had you been the owner of the forum, you perhaps would allow all sorts of criticisms against anyone and everyone. But, it is my observation that, by and large, vedic religion and brahminism/hinduism and brahmins are the ones that have been criticized the most in this forum. Therefore, I do not see any merit in your claim that people in this forum thought such criticisms were blasphemous. Either that or they do not take such "blasphemies" very serious!

 

[sangom]

Sangomji, I want to clarify one thing. I did not imply that YOU are happy with criticizing some but not others. Had you been the owner of the forum, you perhaps would allow all sorts of criticisms against anyone and everyone. But, it is my observation that, by and large, vedic religion and brahminism/hinduism and brahmins are the ones that have been criticized the most in this forum. Therefore, I do not see any merit in your claim that people in this forum thought such criticisms were blasphemous. Either that or they do not take such "blasphemies" very serious!

Shri KB,

I agree with you that "by and large, vedic religion and brahminism/hinduism and brahmins are the ones that have been criticized the most in this forum". But if my memory serves me right, none of these criticisms went unchallenged also. Since I am depending on my memory which is rather weak, I don't want to make this into an issue for further discussion. My own feeling is that these criticisms were considered as serious enough to be disputed and we have had many critical junctures arising therefrom.

One example is, however, fresh in my mind; one member started a separate thread itself to criticize my posts on the rigveda. That was a revelation to me, not only of the "closed" mindset of a group of members here, but also the seething anger at my writings. Since the net import of this critique thread was that one should substantiate each and every statement with evidence from authorities on whom the critic has faith, I gave up my effort.

Therefore, it is difficult for me to agree with your conclusion that "I do not see any merit in your claim that people in this forum thought such criticisms were blasphemous. Either that or they do not take such "blasphemies" very serious". But I feel we may leave this topic here, if you agree.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I agree that the West has been the model to follow for a country seeking material prosperity. But the question is the "material paradigm" sustainable when not undergirded by farsightedness.

You cannot have a sound economic system in place if people who are running it are motivated by greed. The material paradigm inevitably prompts one to place oneself well above others. So a country whose political system only takes care of its interest is bound to falter at one time or the other. Other than that relationships begin to suffer and that costs you mental peace and happiness.

When there are so much of inherent inconsistencies in the systems, they are bound to break sooner or later. That is the reason I do not want India to follow the paradigm of the west.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sangom, Greetings.

I refer to your message in post # 62. There is no need to resort to 'parakeeya love' to understand/realise the ultimate bliss. One can do it without resorting to any such measures. The whole concept is just like any misunderstanding in other religious streams. I mean, in the vedic and/or sastreeya practices, people do differ in the best way of acheiving realisation; same thing applies to 'tantric' method too. I am not an expert in Tantric methods; butI do know 'parakeeya love' is not required. In my humble opinion, it is the question of maintaining the thrill and freshness with the same partner.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri. Sangom, Greetings.

I refer to your message in post # 62. There is no need to resort to 'parakeeya love' to understand/realise the ultimate bliss. One can do it without resorting to any such measures. The whole concept is just like any misunderstanding in other religious streams. I mean, in the vedic and/or sastreeya practices, people do differ in the best way of acheiving realisation; same thing applies to 'tantric' method too. I am not an expert in Tantric methods; butI do know 'parakeeya love' is not required. In my humble opinion, it is the question of maintaining the thrill and freshness with the same partner.

Cheers!

Dear Raghy,

I have read that there was a dispute in this regard between Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who insisted on parakeeya, with another Acharya who said just what you now say and, finally, Chaitanya won. From then on the Tantric Vaishnavism adopted the 'parakeeya'love as the most suitable Tantric method of obtaining realization. Kindly google 'parakiya love +chaitanya'. You may not get a reference to this dispute but the fact that iskcon is based on this.