[Advaita-l] jnAna-vijnAna, gradations in Atma jnAna,
jagannathan.mahadevan at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 02:08:57 CDT 2007
I suppose you are trying to categorize your analysis of RG's article
into your own classification of what it may have meant. Are you saying
that the whole article was only about leadership to spread dharma?
Were there not other details on what RG felt about the two sages and
their outlook? (The note on Sri JBS is only apparent after the
sringeri matha followers, in this list, made efforts to point to it
and it still is not the main focus of the article!)
For the fourth issue of Arya Dharmam of the year Dundhubi (1922), Sri
M.N. Subrahmanai Sastri had sent an article in which he had lauded the
active spirit of Kanchi Periyaval in going to every nook and corner of
the land and giving new life to the Vedic traditions thereby. He had
also written that others in the same position had not cared to exert
themselves similarly. It was evident that he meant the Sringeri
Acharya. The Editor asked Periyaval whether the portions relating to
his good work done by him alone be retained, deleting the aside on the
Even if the editor were claimed to be ignorant it does not affect the
main theme of RG's article. I guess that the "offending" parts are
obvious only to the people who put themselves deliberately in a
particular camp and view the article through the eyes of history (Sri
The editor in question, may really not have come across the fact that
HH did not believe that his duty was to lead a propaganda. What do you
expect periyavAl to instruct the editor? To belabor the point that HH
did not believe that it was not his duty to "lead" an effort? or to
simply state that HH had a different and probably greater
predisposition as the head of an orthodox school! Also the critical
claim was not periyavAL's but that of the writer/editor who probably
feels the same as the questioner in the quote you had provided about
HH (portion reproduced below).
HH's views are not necessarily generic to sringeri given that the past
heads have been involved in different levels of activism such as
vidyAranya swaminah whose political acumen and involvement as a
kingmaker is well known. Besides, the quote on HH you had provided,
and reproduced below, never says that HH did "not support" such
activity to encourage people to uphold dharma.
There are several heads of institutions today, including those that
claim traditional scholarship of advaita vedanta, that are leading
large movements to create awareness of hindu dharma. What would you
tell of them? Would you tell that they are wrong in their actions
because they disagree with HH's own personal belief?
G: The almighty God and the Rishis (Sages) are not visible now, but
you in whom the people repose confidence are present before them in
flesh and blood; and they naturally will pay more attention to your
words than to the religious dictates embodies in books.
HH: Be it as you like. Wherever you go, tell the people, "The Vedas,
the divine commands of the Lord, have enjoined on you these duties.
The Smritis of the Sages also enjoin the same duties. Perform them
properly and reap their benefit. The Acharya also wants you to do the
same." Let not the people continue in adharma for want of a word from
me in support of the authority of the Vedas and the Smritis. You may
tell them that the Vedas and the Smritis have my emphatic support and
that I also enjoin on them the duty to obey them, as you seem to
think my injunction specially valuable.
It will be best if we shed the baggage of history when interacting on
this list, which is and should be for advaita vedanta. All of us
appreciate the role of different institutions and the heads and there
ends the matter. In any case I am not sure if you ever got to post
brahmagyana and jivanmukti-#6. I was away for several days in the past
and might have missed it.
On 3/13/07, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is the third time I'm posting this, hopefully it should make it
> to the list this time around.
> --- Ravishankar Venkatraman <sunlike at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Coming to the link given by you in kamakoti.org, in which
> > >shri.ra.ganapathi wrote about our paramacharyaal and
> > paramacharyaal of
> > >kanchi. First these were write ups of sh.ra.ganapathi.
> > Sh.ganapathi is a
> > >very articulative writer. But, there were factual inaccuracies in
> > the
> > >article. Contrary to what is written there, Shri.Chandrashekara
> > Bharathi
> > >swaminah have never discouraged
> > I do not think that Sri. Ra.Ganapathi wrote anything with any
> > malicious
> > intent in that article. He was trying to promote goodwill among
> > general
> > public to look at the positive aspect of the things. He may not
> > have
> > reproduced conversations verbatim, but he has tried to get the
> > essence of
> > it.
> If RG did not write the article with malicious intent, he must have
> written it in ignorance of the Sringeri Acharya's views.
> I have pointed this out in the following postings:
> Basically, RG says that the Sringeri Acharya's shirking his "duty" of
> religious propaganda can be "excused" because the Acharya was always
> absorbed in meditation:
> "For the fourth issue of Arya Dharmam of the year Dundhubi (1922),
> Sri M.N. Subrahmanai Sastri had sent an article in which he had
> lauded the active spirit of Kanchi Periyaval in going to every nook
> and corner of the land and giving new life to the Vedic traditions
> thereby. He had also written that others in the same position had not
> cared to exert themselves similarly. It was evident that he meant the
> Sringeri Acharya.
> Here Periyaval himself added: "But as the Divine will is not such,
> they are going into nishta (absorption within)"!
> There are two salient features in that pithy addition, One is that
> such happenings take place due to the Divine Will, not understood by
> us humans, and, no one should be blamed therefor. The second point is
> that the INACTION OF THE PERSON WHO WAS BLAMED was not due to inertia
> or inability but due to nishta which belongs to a plane higher than
> But is the above claim true -- that the Sringeri Acharya cannot be
> "BLAMED" for his inaction of not propagating dharma because he was
> absorbed in meditation? Hardly -- for the Sringeri Acharya rejected
> the very idea that he had such a duty:
> "G: That may not be enough. It will be well if Your Holiness yourself
> leads a movement for the propagation of dharma.
> HH: I have already told you that no such movement can influence the
> people who persist in adharma fully knowing it to be adharma and that
> such a movement, if any, to be practically useful must really be led
> by worldly persons like you enjoying high positions in life and not
> by persons like me whose 'business' is religion. FURTHER, I DO NOT
> SEE WHY YOU CAST ANY SPECIAL DUTY UPON ME. I AM NOT CONSCIOUS OF EVER
> LEADING A MOVEMENT FOR THE PROPAGATION OF ADHARMA; IF I HAD AT ANY
> TIME DONE SO, IT MAY BE NOW MY DUTY TO SEE THAT THE MISCHIEF CAUSED
> BY ME IS REMEDIED."
> RG's implication that the Sringeri Acharya "cannot be BLAMED for his
> inaction" makes the implicit assumption that the Sringeri Acharya had
> a duty to perform towards the propagation of dharma. But the Sringeri
> Acharya had categorically rejected the very notion that he had any
> such duty to perform in the first place.
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> 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