Re: Disagreement vs. Apachara
From the Bhakti List Archives
• January 16, 1997
At 12:13 PM 1/16/97 -0800, S. Vidyasankar wrote: > >> >> To my knowledge Sri Mani's objections to Sri Murali Rangaswami prompted a >> few mild and quite respectful disagreements. Sri Mani's response included: >> >> "Practice your sandhyavandanam, be a vegetarian, >> do thiruvaaraadhanai; but don't let these be the >> excuse for committing bhagavata-apacharam." >> >> >From this it can be argued that Sri M. Srinivasan's complaint applies more >> to Sri Mani than to Sri Anbil Ramaswami, the unnamed accused. Further, I > >I thought Mani's comment applied more to the Brahmanas of the time of the >Azhwar, and not to Sri Anbil Ramaswamy per se. Could be, but the words were addressed to those who perform Sandhyavandhanam, et al., and use that as an excuse to commit bhagavatha apacharam. They are not just the Brahmin's of aazhvaar's time. However, the reference to Sri Anbil Ramaswami was strictly in the context of Sri M Srinivasan's complaint about bhagavatha apacharam. My point was that in this instance, the spectre of bhagavatha apacharam was brought forth first by Sri Mani, not Sri Anbil Ramaswami. Again, I hate to be critical of Sri Mani. I hope I don't have to clarify my opinion on this matter any further. You have raised many important questions regarding the practice of Varnashrama Dharma. I know very little about these matters and therefore I am afraid I can't answer any of them. Personally speaking, I will follow the lead of my Acharya. If my acharya says I will have to learn the Vedas from a Chandala I will have absolutely no problem with that. If he says I should not, I won't. regards, Dileepan
- Next message: skaushik_at_mit.edu: "(no subject)"
- Previous message: Parthasarati Dileepan: "Change"
- Maybe in reply to: Sridhar Srinivasan: "Disagreement vs. Apachara"
- Next in thread: Parthasarati Dileepan: "Re: Disagreement vs. Apachara"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]