From: psantana@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Paramesh Santanam)
Subject: Re: Religious Belief = Faith, a reply to S. Pandian
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 00:46:50 EDT

|> In <lag0maINNlct@bathtub.cs.utexas.edu> raman@cs.utexas.edu (Raman Rajagopalan) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Sep4.213950.20982@wuecl.wustl.edu> sp2@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
|> 
|>     What do you mean "TRUE" tamizh. What is atleast
|> >Are you an athiest?  I believe that you "TRUE" tamils at least have
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >faith in murugan and ayyapan.  And, when you advocate that brahmin
|> >priests who are learned in the Vedas should be replaced with priests
|> >who do prayers in Tamil, that at least indicates some belief in prayer.
|>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|>   What are you? Only thing we can conclude is you say you
                              ^^^^^^
	Who "we"?

|> are a "brahmin".
|> How do you say you are one. That basic assumption itself is fishy
|> and based on dogma of caste system. Just because your ancestors said
|> so! I hope you are not a "atamizh" or "athiest" or "averything other than
|> sanskrit and brahmanism".
|> "anthaNar yenpOr aRavOr maRRavuyirkum
|>  senthaNmai pooNdozhuka laan." vEdam 30
|> 
|> "The virtuous are truly called anthaNar; because in their conduct towards
|> all creatures they ar clothed in kindness. So anybody who fits
|> the above definition can be  a brahmin.
|>  

	Funny how this point was not brought up when the reservation
	issue was being discussed.	

|> 
|>  We don't have to be jealous of you. On the other hand you guys
|> want to put everybody in a mayakkam(maaya){confusion} by uttering
|> something which people don't understand and most of you guys don't
|> know. If you know the meaning of saiva-siddhanta mantiram
|> Om! you will know that Om! comprises of a+u+m .
|> The last "m" stands for maaya. Om! sivaaya means that if
|> you are in maaya you want to come out by calling sivan.(God)
|> By worshipping in a real spoken language (telugu, gujaraathi
|> or tamizh or assamese) people will understand what somebody
|> is uttering and don't have to just stand bemused by your
|> language(which you yourself don't know for sure). Knowledge and
|> getting out of "maaya" can happen only when some body knows
|> what is happening? Why? Why can't be poojas be performed in
|> the vernacular. Why are you guys scared. You guys are jealous
|> of tamizhs because they build temples and request poojas
|> to be performed in tamizh. 
|> Here I am referring tamizh, but you can do it any
|> language because God did not assign by any thumb rule
|> that only "paarpaans" should do pooja and only in tamizh.
|> We only say ""paarpaans" can also do poojas also in tamizh." 
|> >Leave me to my beliefs in peace.
|> Nobody is bothering you. You go ahead with your way. We know our
|> way.
|> 
|> >Did anyone ask for this, or is this your crusade?  Please post
|> >interpretations of the *entire* content of the Vedas, if you
|> >wish to examine if it is good or bad.  I seem to recall that
|> >the Vedas contain things like MEDICAL knowledge, MATHEMATICS,
|> >ASTRONOMY, MUSIC, DANCE, and other arts like ASTROLOGY and the
|> >use of WEAPONS.  By posting only partial interpretations, and
|> >advocating that the Vedas are "worthless" or "crap", you are
|> >only making enemies.
|> 
|>    I learnt a lot about vedas from the postings of
|> meenan and pandian. I myself did not know so many things
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> in "rig veda" and "geetha".
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	
	Just reading a few verses from an excerpt from a book 
	neither qualifies you(kathiravan) nor meenan nor pandian to be
	experts to comment on all the vedas, and condemn, them on the 
	basis of these few verses. True one may find some aspects of
	the vedas hard to digest, but I am sure there are more positive
	points you can contribute to this discussion.
	
	Also I am reminded of the following story:
	A teacher asked two of his students to comment on a painting.
	The painting is described thus - "a small black dot on a large
	sheet of white paper".
	When asked to comment one student said:
	I see a black dot.
	The other one said:
	I see all the white in the painting.	

	This episode describes the myopic vision of some of the nettors
	who have contributed to this topic, who seem to see the black
	dot in the vedas and not the goodness it can tell us!!!!
	All said, religion is a personal and touchy issue, so please
	tread softly to avoid stepping on someone else's toes.

|> >Don't hide like Mr. Vishnu under the veil "but those exact words
|> >were not mine .. they were Mr. Kathiravan's".  My use of YOU refers
|> >to all those who have been posting anti-vedic articles, and I
|> >invite all of YOU to respond.  
|> 
|> >- raman rajagopalan

        --Paramesh Santanam
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# include<standard_disclaimer.h>
Views and opinions expressed are mine.
email: psantana@mailbox.syr.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil,alt.culture.tamil