01-19-2005, 03:22 AM
We have heard following excuses so far to justify an abuse of the police-politician-justice system in TN
1. Karma - It is all bad karma of Shankaracharya that he has to face false police cases
2. Nothing that happens is evil - Supporters of the acharya should try to see the ultimate good in the abuse
3. Everything is God's will. - so don't protest against the abuse
Let me just mention what justifications a brahmin caste supremacist could have used regarding the discriminated castes:
1. Karma - It is all their bad karma, which is making them suffer like this in this birth
2. Nothing that happens is evil - so try to see the ultimate good in any abuse
3. Everything is God's will- so don't protest against the abuse
I venture to claim that there is no difference in the mentality that celebrates the abuses of political power against the Shamkaracharya JS, and what a brahmin supremacist may have used against other castes.
Both justifications show a mentality which is based on bigotry.
All well meaning people would naturally be against any kind of bigotry. But what kind of support a well meaning person could offer to someone who protests against a type of crime while simultaneously being guilty of it.
If someone wants to reform the Hindu society, then he must himself be reformed first. There is no point in supplanting one type of bigotry by another.
I have visted Kanchi only once as a 14 year old boy. No one enquired about our caste. I am not sure about the rules for the veda-pathashalas. I don't support any restrictions based on birth for being eligible for any school or job. Personally, I think veda-pathshalas should not be restricted by one's birth. And I think sooner such retrictions, if present, are removed, the better.
But we again drop into a moral morass if people support the state that 'reserves' upto 70% of public funded opportunities against brahmins, while blasting brahmins for 'reserving' private funded veda-pathshalas for themselves.
We also have people who would castigate the Shankaracharya if he ever slightly deviated from the 'tradition'. Shankararaman was one such gadfly. Even a member in this forum kept on harping about the fact that Shankracharya was somehow 'disqualified' because he left his 'danda' behind once, when he had left the Matha for fe days.
Then there are opportunists. Who would demand that Shankaracharya reform the Matha and practices, but would be too delighted to criticize him in the next breath for breaking the 'traditions' and claiming that due to broken traditions, sampradaya is now dead.
What I know of Shri Shankaracharya Jayendra Sarasvati is that he has tried hard to reform the system while facing stiff oppositions from the 'traditionalists', Shankararaman included.
Then there are others who would say "forget reforms, just close the whole place down and be done with it. Hinduism has a whole sea-beach with saints and sampradayas scattered like sands. Why should one care about one grain of sand."
The problem with this approach is that, on closer scrutiny even their pet sampradays appear in need of reform. They of course would deny it, but the key word here is 'impartial'. If one were to apply this 'close down and be done with' approach impartially, the sea beach will be cleaned out of all the sand.
This is a destructive approach. As Hindus, who wish good for Hinduism, we must find a constructive way.
1. Karma - It is all bad karma of Shankaracharya that he has to face false police cases
2. Nothing that happens is evil - Supporters of the acharya should try to see the ultimate good in the abuse
3. Everything is God's will. - so don't protest against the abuse
Let me just mention what justifications a brahmin caste supremacist could have used regarding the discriminated castes:
1. Karma - It is all their bad karma, which is making them suffer like this in this birth
2. Nothing that happens is evil - so try to see the ultimate good in any abuse
3. Everything is God's will- so don't protest against the abuse
I venture to claim that there is no difference in the mentality that celebrates the abuses of political power against the Shamkaracharya JS, and what a brahmin supremacist may have used against other castes.
Both justifications show a mentality which is based on bigotry.
All well meaning people would naturally be against any kind of bigotry. But what kind of support a well meaning person could offer to someone who protests against a type of crime while simultaneously being guilty of it.
If someone wants to reform the Hindu society, then he must himself be reformed first. There is no point in supplanting one type of bigotry by another.
I have visted Kanchi only once as a 14 year old boy. No one enquired about our caste. I am not sure about the rules for the veda-pathashalas. I don't support any restrictions based on birth for being eligible for any school or job. Personally, I think veda-pathshalas should not be restricted by one's birth. And I think sooner such retrictions, if present, are removed, the better.
But we again drop into a moral morass if people support the state that 'reserves' upto 70% of public funded opportunities against brahmins, while blasting brahmins for 'reserving' private funded veda-pathshalas for themselves.
We also have people who would castigate the Shankaracharya if he ever slightly deviated from the 'tradition'. Shankararaman was one such gadfly. Even a member in this forum kept on harping about the fact that Shankracharya was somehow 'disqualified' because he left his 'danda' behind once, when he had left the Matha for fe days.
Then there are opportunists. Who would demand that Shankaracharya reform the Matha and practices, but would be too delighted to criticize him in the next breath for breaking the 'traditions' and claiming that due to broken traditions, sampradaya is now dead.
What I know of Shri Shankaracharya Jayendra Sarasvati is that he has tried hard to reform the system while facing stiff oppositions from the 'traditionalists', Shankararaman included.
Then there are others who would say "forget reforms, just close the whole place down and be done with it. Hinduism has a whole sea-beach with saints and sampradayas scattered like sands. Why should one care about one grain of sand."
The problem with this approach is that, on closer scrutiny even their pet sampradays appear in need of reform. They of course would deny it, but the key word here is 'impartial'. If one were to apply this 'close down and be done with' approach impartially, the sea beach will be cleaned out of all the sand.
This is a destructive approach. As Hindus, who wish good for Hinduism, we must find a constructive way.