From: sp2@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian)
Subject: Some comments on articles on Kanchi Aacharya
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:55:10 GMT

In article <Bt7H9v.B92@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> mvishnu@morse.uwaterloo.ca (m vishnu) writes:
>In article <l92u6aINNm6@aludra.usc.edu> rammohan@aludra.usc.edu (Karthikeyan Rammohan) writes:
>>In article <Bt6wxA.CL9@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> mvishnu@morse.uwaterloo.ca (m vishnu) writes:
>>>
>>	  It is amazing that some brain dead
>>>fellow writes this type of crap and there are people to accept these kinds 
>>>of advice even in this twentieth century !
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Meenan Vishnu
>>
>>	I think you are that brain dead fellow and there are 6 seven
>>brain dead fellows who believe in what you say .
>>	rammohan
>>
>
>My friend, how else will you call someone who writes:
>
>(1) Widows burned with their husbands go to heaven  and that
>(2) Animal sacrificed in a Vedic ritual go to heaven
>
>Meenan Vishnu

      I request the writers to avoid strong words like 
 `brain dead fellow' etc. in their articles .    
      If I disapprove the views of a posting, I try to
 specify clearly what I disapprove and why I disapprove
 and I hope to get a reply from the posting. Not many
 writers have cared to reply my replies to their articles
 and as one writer ( Sthan ?) pointed out in his article,
 we have to develop a `karma yogic' attitude when it 
 comes to expect replies from others.
     Coming to articles on Kaanchi Acharya, Arasu posted
 an advice of Kaanchi Aacharya and he reserved his opinions
 and he left it to readers to decide. Not all readers found
 it a crap. Prabhukumar Ganapathy defended Kaanchi Aacharya's
 advice. But I see that Meenan Vishnu found this advice a
 crap. His comment `Kaanchi Aacharya is a brain dead fellow'
 is uncalled for. He also referred to Jayendra Saraswathi's
 book `Daivaththin Kural' in his posting and called it a
 crap. Usually, if we find someone speaking non-sense, we
 won't immediately address him/her as a `brain-dead fellow'.
 We instead point him out that he is speaking non-sense and
 we will support our views with our reasoning. Balaji Kannan
 did not counter Meenan in his criticism on Arasu's posting
 and the volume `Daivaththin Kural' with good arguments but
 he instead wrote flames on Meenan Vishnu. He apologised
 also in his posting for his flame. If everyone follows suit
 with writing all kind of non-sense they want to write ending
 it with an apology note, this unmoderated group will naturally
 involve a lot of flame wars. I was sad to see some posters
 defending Balaji Kannan for his flame. A flame is a flame.
 It doesn't matter what it is intended for. I request writers
 to keep decency in their articles and also to present reasonable
 arguments in their articles if they find some views posted in
 the net as `non-sense'. 
     I see that Meenan Vishnu has specified reasons why he
 found Jayendra Saraswathi's book a crap. I wish he had specified
 them in his first article itself which could have led to a
 good discussion as he could have probably avoided flames from
 Balaji Kannan and others wasting the bandwidth of this net.
   Meenan has given two reasons :
(1) Widows burned with their dead husbands go to heaven
(2) Animals sacrificed in the vedic rituals go to heaven.

    In his first comment, Jayendra Saraswathi gives an
 argument in favor of `sati'. Sati is banned by Indian
 government and one gets an immediate reason to object
 the first comment. What is this `heaven' ? Does it really
 exist or is it just our imagination ? As I used to write
 in my philosophical articles, what if we were not brought
 up with all these religious myths like `heaven', `hell'
 etc. ? Won't we question the speaker what is the authority
 when he talks on `heaven', `mOksham' etc. ?             
    I also heard that Sankaracharyas don't see widows and
 that they fast if they happen to see one. I also saw a
 posting saying that Jayendra Saraswathi fasted for three
 days after Indhira Gandhi paid a visit. Is it a SIN to
 see widows ? In other words, is being a widow a SIN ?
 The first comment is very male-chauvinistic. In Brahminism,
 if one's wife dies, he is not burned with his wife. But,
 if one's husband dies, she is burned ( or forced to be
 burned ) alongwith her husband. A justification given is
 that the widows burned with their husbands go to `heaven'.
 Though this practice `sati' is abolished in our country
 and is rarely practised by people, it is very condemnable
 to support this practice `sati' [ irrespctive of who argues
 in favor of it .]
    In his second comment, Jayendra Saraswathi says that
 "Animals burned in a vedic ritual go to heaven". This is
 an argument to defend the animal sacrifice practised by
 the Brahminism in the early days. This animal sacrifice
 is not in practice in the recent days. This comment is
 also very vague as `heaven' is just an imagination and
 nothing more. Also, this justification is very cruel to
 animals. This reminds me of an instance from the life of
 the Enlightened One.
    In front of the court of King Bhimbisara, Buddha found
 animal sacrifices performed by the Brahmin priests in the
 King's court. Buddha was very pained by that sight and he
 requested the king to stop the vedic rituals which were 
 going on. The king replied that he would arrange a debate
 between Buddha and the chief Brahmin priest and that he
 would listen to the words of who wins the debate. That is,
 if Buddha wins the debate, he would ask the Brahmins to
 stop animal sacrifices ( cow, horse etc.) 
   The debate went on like this :
  Buddha : Why do you perform animal sacrifices in your
           rituals ?
  Brahmin priest : For the welfare of the king .
  Buddha : What about the welfare of the animals you are
            sacrificing ?
  Brahmin priest : Don't worry. It is written that animals
                   sacrificed in the vedic rituals go to
                   heaven.
  Buddha : So they go to heaven ?
  Brahmin priest : Yes. They go to heaven.
  Buddha : Is your father living with you ?
  Brahmin priest : (puzzled ) Why do you ask this question ?
                    Yes. He is living with me. He is very
                    old.
  Buddha : Where will he go if he dies ?
  Brahmin priest : I don't know.
  Buddha : Would you be glad if he goes to heaven ?
  Brahmin priest : Yes, of course.
  Buddha : Why don't you sacrifice him in the vedic ritual ?
  Brahmin priest : ( caught by his own justification of
                   animal sacrifices keeps silence )
    The king appalauded Buddha and ordered to stop the vedic
 rituals. He also stopped supporting Brahminism and became
 a devotee of Buddha.
                                                 - S.Pandian
                                           sp2@cec1.WUSTL.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------- 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.tamil:1412 alt.culture.tamil:1230