11-25-2004, 01:57 PM
Dear Samudra - I would turn the question around. What is so reasonable or beneficial to society about a system that allows any old Uttamarajan or Balasubramaniam to be elevated to the position of judge - more or less at the whim of a political official? When we allow individuals to have that kind of power - literally the power of deciding between freedom and imprisonment, life or death, we surely have a duty to question what they are like - how sound their judgment might be, and how wise their decisions have been or how sane their doings have been in the past.
Sankaracharya's power is solely based on his following - which is voluntary. If anyone believes Sankaracharya to be a bad man or a fake swami, they will stop following his advice or seeking his blessing. But society is at the mercy of a judge whether they like it or not, because someone appointed them. And the very act of raising questions about what their qualities are that they should weild such power, people like you merely roll their eyes, instead of engaging in thought. That, to me, is a pretty sorry state of affairs.
The Sankaracharya's influence and power arise solely from his adherence to the path of truth. Because so many perceive that Periyaval has been the embodiment of dharm, they respect and revere him. It has nothing to do with "untouchability" or "caste", The proof lies in the pudding, in this case. The broad swathe of people, crossing boundaries of religion, "caste" and party to voice their indignation proves this point abundantly. (It is a mark of the intellectual laziness of modern, secular Indians ad hoc assertions about "caste-untouchabiity" are offered as a substitute for reasoned argument like a parroted refrain.)
Sankaracharya's power is solely based on his following - which is voluntary. If anyone believes Sankaracharya to be a bad man or a fake swami, they will stop following his advice or seeking his blessing. But society is at the mercy of a judge whether they like it or not, because someone appointed them. And the very act of raising questions about what their qualities are that they should weild such power, people like you merely roll their eyes, instead of engaging in thought. That, to me, is a pretty sorry state of affairs.
The Sankaracharya's influence and power arise solely from his adherence to the path of truth. Because so many perceive that Periyaval has been the embodiment of dharm, they respect and revere him. It has nothing to do with "untouchability" or "caste", The proof lies in the pudding, in this case. The broad swathe of people, crossing boundaries of religion, "caste" and party to voice their indignation proves this point abundantly. (It is a mark of the intellectual laziness of modern, secular Indians ad hoc assertions about "caste-untouchabiity" are offered as a substitute for reasoned argument like a parroted refrain.)