From: sri@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (a.natarajan)
Subject: Re: Dharma Sansad Demands Lifting of Bans (Niranjan Dev Teerth's
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:53:12 GMT

In article <1#12f7q@rpi.edu> divaka@rpi.edu writes:
>In article <1hna95INNs4o@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>|> Ajay Divakaran sez:
>|> 
>|> >           I do remember the eldest Kanchi Shankaracharya refusing to even
>|> >look at widows, and then having a well publicised meeting with Mrs. Indira
>|> >Gandhi. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.
>|> >                                                           ajay 
>|> 
>|> There's a different reason for that. The reason that he gave, as did the
>|> middle Shankaracharya gave when he met Janaki Ramachandran (when she was
>|> CM for two weeks after MGR kicked the bucket) was that they were Heads of
>|> State, equivalent to the Kings of yore, and hence had a right to an audience
>|> with the SAs by virtue of their positions. So whatever the merits (or lack
>|> thereof) of the stance of refusing to see widows are, there is some crazy
>|> consistency in their positions. I think though, that like the Catholic Church,
>|> they need to do some occasional re-thinking of their positions on various
>|> issues to reflect the progressive liberalization of society.
>|> 
>     I see your point about the crazy consistency. I agree with your point
>about occasional re-thinking.
> Such a  consistent refusal to
>reform  has done immeasurable harm to Hinduism. The major weakness of Hindu 
>society has been  its ill treatment of a sizable section of its own members.
>Whether or not the scriptures sanction such ill treatment is open to debate, but
>that it exists is undeniable. When our religious "leaders" sanction such ill
>treatment by their actions and/or words they perpetuate the injustice. 
>|> The reason for the publicity that attended the meeting between the Seniormost
>|> pontiff of Kanchi and IG was that he had previously refused to see her as a
>|> result of differences of opinion over the Emergency. He is himself a very
>|> learned man, proficient in as many as 17 languages, and a philosopher of 
>|> great repute. When he was picked to become the Matadhipathi of Kanchi, in the
>|> early part of the century, there was apparently some concern over the fact that
>|> he was more interested in Shakespeare and Bacon than the Vedas or the Upanishads.
>|> 
>|> -- 
>         I was not aware of the above. I only had a vague notion that he must
>have been exceptionally learned to have received the appointment.
>         I do not for one moment deny the scholarly credentials of Kanchi
>Periyavar. But when such scholarly people maintain the most narrow points
>of view, such views tend to gain a certain legitimacy. If an illiterate 
>Brahmin from Varanasi flees from the "evil sight" of widows, then perhaps (NOT!)
>he can be excused on the grounds of ignorance. How can we excuse a man 
>proficient in 17 languages and a philosopher of great repute for his
>antediluvian prejudices? Moreover, his actions represent an example to be
>followed by the large number of people who hold him in reverence. 
>          This reminds me of Lord Macaulay. In one essay he wrote that one
>bookshelf in a Western Library contains more wisdom than the entire wisdom
>of the east. In another essay he wrote that to say that freedom should not
>be given to those who are not ready for it, is like saying you should not
>enter water without learning to swim first. 
>           Both of these brilliant scholars suffer from the same malady:
> lofty universality in thought, but prejudice in action.
>          I reiterate  that when learned people express prejudice,
>they give prejudice a powerful endorsement. That makes their prejudice
>much more culpable than that of lesser mortals.
>                             Regards
>                                                        ajay   
>|> Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu
>|> 
>|> If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
>|> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------




One must understand that "SCHOLARSHIP", "INTELLIGENCE", and "LEARNING"
do NOT necessarily make one "WISE"!
Our own SCI and SCT and related network posters are example to understand this!
There are so many "learned", "intelligent" PhDs, professors, scientists etc.
on the net who, through their scholarly postings (or should I say, in spite of
their scholarly postings) fail to show any semblance of wisdom!
One may be a scholar, an intellectual, a learned dude, and yet may
be prejudiced, unwise, and unwilling to "see" the reality!

The definition of a true SaaDHu is:

"thithikshava: kaaruNikaa: Suhrdha: Sarva dhEhinaam |
 ajaatha sathrava: saanthaa: SaaDHava: SaaDHu BHooshaNaa: ||"

The samsad, it appears to me from their actions,
is perhaps made up of several "SaaDHus" who lack EVERY ONE of
the above five characteristics!

Regards

Natarajan at AT&T BL.