[Advaita-l] On the history of Bharathavarsha
anbesivam2 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 22 05:51:58 CST 2010
I think we have come to the end of the discussion on this atleast beween you
and me. This one point on my own personal stand that you commented needs a
bit of clarification.
You have said:* "You say that you are nobody to those writers who have been
busy insulting the Sringeri
tradition for a few decades now. That is very convenient, isn't it? It is
the silence of all those who think they are "nobody" that allows
controversies like this to thrive. I refuse to be a "nobody" and I refuse to
be silent for the sake of appearances. I may be pardoned for having
preferred "satyam vada" completely, at the expense of "na brUyAt satyam
Why is it so important that I align with you and echo your sentiments? I
have said that I am nobody. Are you saying that I am somebody and that I am
donning the garb of nobody for convenience sake? You give yourself the
democratic right to express yourself but when it comes to others then
persons such as I allow controversies to thrive, is it? If you and I refuse
to be 'silent' would others be so too? Does it mean that the silence of
you and me is dependent on others' silence?
Sir, the only ingredient that the objects have on us is its temptation. If
we deny their temptation they die!* They don't exist as far as we are
concerned. This is the precise lesson of Vedanta.
My stand from the beginning has been not to take one side or the other in
this matter but to express my concern on the fall out from such discussion
on Sringeri or Kanchi or Dwarka Math either individually or collectively.
You are taking a stand of 'sathyam vadha' but at the same time you do say
that that which you expressed long ago cannot be brought into discussion.
If you think what you had expressed earlier is not your stand anymore just
say so (that it is no more sathyam) and until you do that you will be
commented on that statement.
However, it does bring to light that in vyavahaarika dhasa nothing is
permanent and that includes the 'vaadham' that is held as sathyam. I have
in this list posted my view that the falsity, poi, mithya of this prakrthi
is held aloft in the triad of time, space and causality and they change
swifter than we think (for thought is held to be the swiftest than the speed
of light and yet it cannot overcome this triad). So one's 'sathyam' and the
pride of happiness from it lasts only as long as the view or perception of
what is held as truth lasts. It always ends in misery and guilt. Such is
the essence of samsaara. That is why we want to escape from it. This list
serves as a good vehicle for discussion of that nature.
So much so your 'sathyam' on these dates are quite impermanent in its very
nature which unfortunately you wish to ignore. *It does not mean that I am
holding another 'sathyam' in vyavahaarika dasa as permanent.* Far from it!
At least the fact is that you and Bhattacharjee stay behind Sringeri and
Dwaraka the existence of which you both do not question. So it all boils
down to Kanchi Math with its antogonists and protogonists on its origin. I
pointed out how taking a stand on it will, willy nilly, help the adharmists
to use the very followers of Sankara to be used against each other.
Sir, why four or five Matams only? Why hesitate to accept Kanchi Mutt as a
great Mutt ignoring the senseless protogonists. Why is it important to give
credence to those who are partial? Don't you have the conviction that they
will fall away by the wayside in the march of history?
Sir, Let there be hundreds of Sankara Mutts and of course they will all have
roots in Adhi Sankara. In fact they are many cropping up time and again. I
am talking of the genuine ones. A very learned member of this forum belong
to such a follower of Sankara who is not associated with any of the four or
five Mutts. The grand father of another member Swamy Vidyanandha Giri was a
disciple of Swamy Gnananandha Giri who had established his own Mutt though
he had claimed roots in Joshi Mutt. Who cares if Sankara lived yesterday or
thousands of years ago. What earthly use does it serve to fix him to a
date? Is not his message important? Sir, his message is the 'Sathyam' that
is beyond the vyavahaara. Hold on to that! There won't then be any
heartburn and misery!
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sri Anbu Sivam,
> There is nothing that irks me about this issue. Nowhere in this current
> discussion have
> I said anything about the Kanchipuram tradition, but it seems to me that
> what I wrote
> almost two decades ago still irks you. That's fine, and I'm glad you got an
> to get it off your chest.
> You can choose to label me anything you want, when it comes to history, and
> can choose to misunderstand and misrepresent my position any which way you
> As I predicted, you have totally misunderstood what I said about Dr. Swamy
> the blessings of the Sringeri Acharya. Within my knowledge, from the
> era Indira Gandhi to L K Advani, political leaders of all stripes vie with
> one another for
> getting blessings of not only the Sringeri Acharya, but a whole host of
> religious leaders.
> Perhaps only the reddest end of the political spectrum keeps away from
> this. I don't
> have to privilege any one politician on that count. I am very skeptical
> when it comes to
> wondering what the motivation of a politician is and living in a democratic
> society gives
> me the right to express that skepticism freely. Needless to say, this says
> nothing about
> what regard I have for the religious leaders, but I don't think you would
> agree. So be it.
> All I know is that whether in religious or secular issues, the truth alone
> matters and is
> therefore sacred. How we arrive at the truth can often be a very personal
> journey and
> quite unique. All the more reason why emotional judgments need to be set
> aside, or else
> we are in danger of getting completely lost. I do not accept everything
> somebody said
> just because of his or her religious position, nor do I accept everything
> somebody said
> just because of their so-called secularist views. I may be egotistical in
> holding on to my
> own reasoning faculty, but I believe that without our reason we flounder.
> You say that you are nobody to those writers who have been busy insulting
> the Sringeri
> tradition for a few decades now. That is very convenient, isn't it? It is
> the silence of all
> those who think they are "nobody" that allows controversies like this to
> thrive. I refuse
> to be a "nobody" and I refuse to be silent for the sake of appearances. I
> may be pardoned
> for having preferred "satyam vada" completely, at the expense of "na brUyAt
> satyam apriyam".
> I am truly nobody to the political parties that thrive upon anti-Hinduism
> in Tamil Nadu. If
> any of their people quotes me for whatever reason, that is a quite
> misguided attempt on
> their part. All I can see on this count is some small discussion thread on
> an internet forum
> where I have been cited. This is so marginal to the high stakes game of
> politics that it is
> not even funny. The world outside of the internet operates on its own
> rhythm and what I
> wrote on a newsgroup in the nineties is completely irrelevant to it.
> Politics makes strange
> bedfellows, they say, but I can truthfully say that I've never got into bed
> with any political
> agenda. I abhor giving a political twist to issues that don't need to be
> politicized. Given how
> everything in India is nowadays extremely politically polarized, you may
> not be able to
> appreciate my perspective, but again, so be it. In any case, can we agree
> to drop this
> discussion? It is ironic indeed, how this thread keeps growing, after all
> the self-professed
> desire not to beat this issue to death.
> Best regards,
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list