Re: Sri SUDARSAN's COMMENTS ON SDDS PANEL DISCUSSIONS
From the Bhakti List Archives
• August 26, 1997
Dear and revered Sri.Anbil Swamy, I am in the preparatory process of dismantling my stuff here and hence do not have a private e-mail address anymore. I am glad the last message delivered to me was yours because a day's delay and I would not have received your message and would have been oblivious of the almost virulent feelings I seem to have aroused in the past week.I am glad I'm able to respond to you so that you do not think that I duck responsibility for my opinions expressed. My only regret is that I do not have the i-net resources anymore to be able to face all the flak that you and other members have thought it fit to pepper me with. I can see that you have been uncharacteristicaly upset about what I have said. So upset that you have chosen to say harsh things about me which you otherwise would not like to. I consider it my mistake to have couched my opinions in language intended to be just "witty" but which I fear has come across the medium as facetious, flippant and "downright insulting" as you say. I realise "humour" is not my forte and I often misplace it. What would pass off nicely in the corporate conferences would probably stink elsewhere. I agree and I am sorry for it. Like a good batsman who cuts out "risky shots" from his cricketing repertoire I guess I too shall cut out "witticisms" from my opinions expressed especially through cyber-space. This is an age for apology-making. The Japanese Emperor has said sorry to the Chinese and Koreans for historical misdemeanours. The Queen of England is now being asked to say sorry to the Indians for having occupied the land after 300 years ! It would be utterly churlish and ill-mannered of me not to tender my own for the "witticisms" that have not gone down well with you and all others on the list. Let me assure you and your members that no insult of any sort was intended. As for the substance of what I said I am not convinced that all what I said was objectionable and in fact I stoutly stand by it. You unfairly and needlessly make me out to be some kind of a heretic against SriRamanuja. I am not and I have said nothing to suggest that.I strongly resent your innuendo. In plain "unhumorous" parlance, all that I said was in its true essence SriRamanuja's teachings have a metaphysical plain and a secular plain; the former, concerning itself with "world-view", does not PRIMA FACIE relate to the way we lead our lives... yes, certainly, in the specific milieu of the 10th-century but not necessarily for all times to come; but in a LESS PRIMA FACIE and more real way the "world-view" does impact on "life-styles" for all times to come; a proper understanding of how (I was trying to say) may not so easily or directly be acquired through his own writings as in my opinion, it is definitely otherwise possible through diligent study of the "itihasas" and "puranA-s". Just compare, Sri.Anbil Swamy, the sheer quantum of material that Sri Ramanuja has written by way of philosophical commentary and how much he has actually written by way of ethical commentary. The former clearly outnumbers the latter. Which itself shows that Udayavar himself may have known that with the passage of time and certainly after 1000 years, the tide of societal and value changes would be comprehensible and intelligible to people more easily in terms of the medium of "itihAsa/purAnA" rather than in terms of a "period prescription" like, for instance, we know the "Laws of Manu" are. What is wrong in the above view ? Tell me Sri.Anbil Swami ! Why do you think it is suggestive of "self-contradiction" ? What is so "arrogant" and "immature" about it? And what is heretical about it ? Why should the above view of mine lead you to conclude that I arrogate to myself a status equal to that great "AchAryA" ? Why do you paint me in such villainous colours for merely voicing a view however distasteful it may be to you ? I have no really no wish to respond to other uncharitable comments made by you, Sri Anbil Swamy. You say that you were wrong in your personal opinion about me and that I am not the "true-SriVaishnava" that you thought I was. Fair enough, if you want to condemn me without trial and due process, pls, go ahead. But let me tell you that I have not changed my impression about you one bit... I still hold you in very high esteem in spite of all the "nice" things you have had to say about me. It does not matter if in doing that I continue to be un-Srivaishnavite ! adiyEn/dAsan, sudarshan
- Next message: Cadambi_Sriram_at_lgs.ca: "Article in Hindu on Uttaramerur"
- Previous message: Vijay_Srinivasan_at_praxair.com: "Saranagathy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]