Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re : Avoiding certain issues

From the Bhakti List Archives

Greg Jay • June 25, 1998 


Excuse me, but I really do have to point out some of the absurdities in
these statements.

S. Sundar said:
>      There are naturally more instances of inequalities shown to
>      people over these years. We cannot   justify  all these incidents.

No one is asking you to justify Unshastric behavior. But if there is
shastra pramanam for or against certain  behavior, then certainly it can be
justified. Perhaps you don't know enough to justify it yourself. Then why
not try to learn the reasons for it, if indeed you are interested in
Shastric standards.

S. Sundar said:
>      Just think who are most of us, persons with little knowledge of
>      religion and more interest on the welfare of it.

Excuse me, but please explain to me how someone can profess "interest in
the welfare" of his/her religion and yet not be interested in learning
about it. If you are really interested in the welfare of Sri Vaisnavism
then begin by educating yourself in it's philosophy and practice. Which
neccessarily means a discussion of the above mentioned topics. Perhaps you
are afraid that you might have to take a personal stand on some
philosophical issue. As far as I am concerned you already have made a
philosophical statement by saying that you don't want to discuss (or even
hear about) this topic even though it is clearly discussed by the Great Sri
Vaisnava Acharyas.

S. Sundar said:
>      What we can do, take the good aspects from our great Acharyas and
>      others. Disregard   or playdown the aspects which are not relevant
>      to our time.

Who says that they are not relevant? You say this without even any
discussion, and even though you profess to know nothing of the topic. Your
suggestion is to simply NOT DISCUSS any topic which is not POLITICALLY
CORRECT, even though it is a part of Sri Vaisnava dogma and is supported by
Shastra.

S. Sundar said:
>      (King Dasaratha Married to lot of wives,
>       Draupathi married to five pandavars those are also in our
>      great epics, are we  elaborating those things. We take the greatness
>      of
>      Bhagvat Gita, Neethi of Vithura and  sathyam, Eka pathni viratham of
>      Sri Rama )
>      This is what I meant by avoiding certain topics which may not  be
>      suitable in the present time.

So according to you Lord Krishna spoke Bhagavad Gita, which we should
study, but His personal life we shouldn't talk about because He didn't have
only one wife like Lord Rama. It seems as though you are simply full of
mundane conceptions as regards all these great personalities that you have
mentioned. If you accept Shastra then you must accept ALL of it, not just
the parts that you like. Instead of thinking that there is something wrong
with that ancient society why don't you look around you at the problems and
solutions offered by todays society. Don't think that there is no polygamy
today. People don't have more than one wife AT A TIME, that's all. But what
is worse according to the Gita polygamy or divorce? US Law does not allow a
man to take responsibility for more than one wife. But that same law allows
him to have as many sexual partners outside of marriage as he likes, and to
divorce and re-marry as many times as he like. Which of these alternatives
is more shastric? I am not proposing the intoduction of polygamy. Nor do I
think that it is a particularly important topic in regards to Sri
Vaisnavas. I just want to make the point that some people like to discuss
Shastra but when it comes to the practical application of Shastra they
don't want to compromise their modern lifestyles or politically correct
views. Talk is cheap, what about philosophical integrity and commitment to
follow shastras!

S. Sundar said:
>      Why should we used this list or any other place to cause divisions in
>      our society.

Wake up! There are already divisions in our society. Discussion is the only
way for people born and bred into those divisions to hear and appreciate
the other sides viewpoint. It is not with the object of defeating an
opponent that I call for discussion. I call for it to learn the different
interpretations and implementations of Shastra and the reasons for them. I
am not a blind follower of religious dogma or ashamed to defend my beliefs.

Hoping that you take this in the spirit of constructive criticism, in which
it is offered.

Keshava das