The discussion among people who call themselves as Devotees of Kanchi and Sringeri is disgusting.
Kanchi adherents say that Sringeri Acharya travels by Car, ostentatious and does precious little for the Community.
On their part ,Sringeri Mutt followers say that Sri.Adi Sankara did not establish a Mutt at Kanchi at all as there can be one South Mutt and that’s Sringeri.
It is also added that Kanchi gets into unnecessary controversies that do not befit the Offices of an Acharya, much like the Pope.!
Kanchi retorts that Sringeri is the Asthana Peda of The Mysore Maharaja and Kanchi is for the common man!
Sringeri quotes JayendraSaraswati Episode and Kanchi had to squirm .
Are these people real Devotees, who are after the Truth and Realisation?
Let’s get the facts .
True that there is no historical evidence that the Kanchi Mutt was established by Adi Shankaracharya direct.
So what?
If some want to get a vicarious pleasure in criticising Kanchi , Be it.
On their part ,Kanchi need not attempt to justify the Petam by trying to twist  History.
Kanchi Periyava is an incarnation of Compassion and a reflection of what a Real Sanyasi should be.
He advised Arthur Osbourne , who had come to  ask him to accept him as his Disciple hie advised him that his Guru is Ramana Maharishi;he will return dissatisfied with him at the first instance and later become Ramana’s  ardent Devotee.(Osbourne records this.I have posted on this)
As to Sringeri the dignity and the beauty of the Pooja of the Swamiji is to be felt to believed.
Contrary to what people think he was/ is very pragmatic.
His approach to the Duty of Sannyasa is ‘Perform duties as a Sanyasi  by Poojas and Bhashans and leave the Empirical to the worldly.
“He Is There’
Not many people know how humble and  Gracious he  is.
I had an argument(!?) with him (Abhinava Vidyatheertha) on the interpretation of a sentence in The Vedas and was down right rude.
He sent for me latter , explained me(where he told me I was Right!) and taught me Vedas for about eight long years( though I attended intermittently)
When I went to seek a Darshan of Kanchi Periyava for the first time, he picked me from the Crowd(( I do not believe in getting recommendation in having Darshan in Temples or The Acharyas) and said’
” you are learning from the Sringeri Periyava, make sure you follow what he says”
He had no chance of knowing this.
This the mutual respect these great souls had for each other.
Our goal is Realisation and we are not qualified to comment on these Sages.
Let me quote Excerpt for MahaPeriyava site;
Sringeri Periyava said about Mahaperiyava::
Mahaperiyava speaks highly about Sringeri Periyava’s thapas::
Below is what Sringeri Periyava advises to all – I can’t agree anymore.
Last but not the least, Mahaperiyava admits that Kanchi Vs Sringeri is not going to end anywhere sooner…
http://mahaperiyavaa.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/kanchi-vs-sringeri/
My simple question to all of you: The Saints never asked you to visit him then why you guys were running after him to see ? It means you expected something from him and then you are disappointed with those Saints and then talking all nonsense ? You do you duty and let them do their duty. you are not the person to dictate him on what he should do. FYI I have never met any of those saints referred here…
There has been an outburst of anger from Kousalya. I want to address this to ensure there is a balance of opinion.
I would like to address a few points here
1. We tend to expect that our saints have to be spot on and right about every single thing. This is unrealistic. No holy text or religious order however noble its intentions may be , are right about everything in a way that is justifiable to modern people. Secondly no scientist or social leader fits together as an ideal example in society. Humans are humans . This does not mean, we should pelt stones at Mahathma Gandhi or abuse Kanchi Paramacharya. We should accept his wisdom in regards to religion. What we like we can accept , what we don’t we should learn to ignore. Even normal mortals have had visions of deities that they worship. Such authorities like paramacharya have put lot of energy in practically experiencing many of the truths within vedas, Vedanta, shastras and temple worship. Hence what they say acquire a new meaning. Do we reject Einstein’s theories because he was not able to appreciate or agree with some new scientific concepts which were later proven true?. It is easily possible that he was adamant about a few things because he was egoistic and these people were not fitting the standards of scholarship which they preached. We cannot take away his insight in his area of expertise as a scientist despite his flawed approach. When we can do this with our scientists despite their innumerable failings why cannot we do that with our saints? In this case , there is little to suggest that Paramacharya’s reasoning was based on egoism.
2. Did Paramacharya ask widows to be illtreated. Did he ask families to ignore widows , lock them up within four walls of a house, insult them, keep them mentally down and upset. Did he ask a widow’s son to stop showing love to his mother. Did he ask the daughter in laws to illtreat the widows. Did he ask the husband’s mother to ill treat a daughter in law who becomes a widow. What happens within the four walls of a house or a family is better known to that family. If a widow was unhappy despite a long period of husband’s death, it has more to do with the family setting and the kind of people in that family. It has less to do with shastras or restrictions. I am sorry. Affection is missing where there should be affection. Paramacharya was of the firm view that Shastra restrictions was good for society in the long run. His view may or may not be right. But my practical experience says that lot of things depend on the family where a women is widowed and people’s attitude in general is flawed. People have to correct themselves rather than blaming shastras and gurus. Tonsuring a head is no big deal. Paramacharya himself had to give up his hair and his sacred thread and dorn the saintly robes and pick up kamandalu at the order of his guru. Life did not become easy for him just because he was a guru.Young brahmacharis shave their head and wear a tuft. These examples are not usually considered discriminatory because they appear to be voluntary. But brahmacharis of age 7 and voluntary? We can easily argue that they learned to respect tradition and its orders and hence were not unhappy about it. I agree that widows had tough life but that was largely because of the hypocrisy and missing affection in the families they lived in. In families where people seldom follow the shastras but expect widows alone to live with restriction, it becomes even more hypocritical and a widow feels saddened by the state of affairs around her where everyone else is having an easy life, waking up late, skipping prayers and household work. Men don’t fast on ekadasi but expect widows to fast. Men don’t wake up at brahma muhurtham to start their prayer, but expect widows to wake up early and start house work. Married women dump household work on the widows and go out with their husbands. We can add more and more examples of hypocrisy to this. Houses are lifeless, restrictive four walls for widows of such families.
3. Paramacharya stood for tradition and he considered many restrictions as valid. There are well laid down scriptures on what a sanyasi should do and should not do. A widow ,is considered a person who could be exploited. A sanyasi should not indulge in exploitation of anyone whether a widow or not. A widow was even more vulnerable. And hence there was a restriction for a sanyasi to meet a widow. Sometimes it may not be a sanyasi’s fault alone. He has to live a life of celibacy. He is a male however. A widow is a female who has to live a life of celibacy . If the two meet, there is an opportunity given for thoughts to arise. Even a lustful thought is a break in celibacy for a sanyasi. Thoughts may or may not materialize but it is a break in vow. Case of married women accompanied by other family men is different. We are not like west. Even normal householders in India, except for some third rate people don’t entertain lust for married women. So it is not a big deal for sanyasi to control this. Now I am not saying kanchi paramacharya was so out of control. But only if he followed the restrictions other sanyasis would follow the same. So many sanyasis considered him as an example and he had to follow example. Bhagwat Gita clearly says that a realized person has to follow restrictions even if he has no need for them as others blindly follow the same person. Here I have used the wrong translation for shastras as restriction because that is how modern society has labelled them.
4. Why should Parmacharya be aware of the character of everyone who visited him. Did he claim to be God. Only God knows everything. So whether he blessed a prostitute or not does not matter. Whether he blessed a widow disguised as a married women does not matter. With his knowledge , he did not deviate from scriptures. When society completely changed, in order to ensure that no one suffers from lack of blessings when something has already become the norm ( such as widows dressing up like married women ), paramacharya to some extent and his successors to a greater extent have adopted the practice of blessing everyone who visited them. My question is why should Kousalya consider those people as an example who inspite of knowing a saint’s practice of avoiding widows, have gone to meet paramacharya. Lot of close followers of paramacharya know that he always blesses people in the name of god and attributes the blessings received by someone to God. So why should Kousalya not ask the question , why God has blessed these women with loose morals. Did they really get blessings inspite of meeting paramacharya is another question.
5. Finally Kousalya family being so self righteous of having decided not to meet paramacharya should have taken one more vow. They should have counselled the widow to throw away her restrictions, grow hair like other women and decorate herself like other married women. Why doesn’t she speak of lack of conviction in their own principles.
6. There are numerous widows of those times who used to cherish the connection their family enjoyed with paramacharya. They felt truly transformed by paramacharya’s grace and would never talk so rashly like Kausalya inspite of being widows and seen through those times
7. I am extending the same logic to Sringeri mutt acharyas as well.
I wish The Mutt Heads ,their followers and their interpreters practice tolerance and vcompassion instead bringing Politics into Religion.We have enough dirt in the name of Politics-What we need is love,care,good teachings and blessings from our Guides.
My question again which in a way is responsible for all the mud slinging and sorrows in our society.” What customs and rituals do I follow??”Is it written down for me,or can someone direct me to it?
Should we follow our Puranas?
Aravan,Arjuna’s son committs Kaalapali so that The Pandavas can win the Battle.He does tyhis with the blessings of his father and uncles so that they can win.
Is this a good custom?Is it the reason people sacrifice a poor goat or a chicken to ensure victory or fulfillment? The Aswametha yaagam was another case in point.
Cruelty to the core.This custom still exists in a number of temples.And we talk about Compassion! You can kill a chicken but not a cow or a willing Aravan!!][Thank God
Again, Madhuri performed Sati with Paandu but Kunthi didnt,Why???
I can see that even centuries back human kind was as confused as it is now.
One thing though has not changed- A widow has to immediately change her wardrobe as soon as her spouse departs[Please watch the latest episode of Seethayam,after Dasarathans demise OR the older portions of the Mahabharatha where Ambalika and Ambika lose their collective husband Vichitravirya.Not to forget Satyavati who loses her Poovum Pottum when Shantanu passes away!
Please explain Sir.
Is Raja Ram mohan Roy wrong??
Visalakshi
So many points are raised here.Let me reply to some.
1. Hinduism abounds in Sastras. And commentaries on them are legion. It is indeed difficult to find one’s way. That is why we need a Guru, who is not a mere scholar, but a Realised person.
2. Those who get such doubts about what we should do- ie dharma are fortunate . Such doubt will lead to questioning and reflection and get the answers.
3. Such doubters are in good company. Arjuna had this doubt about dharma at the beginning of the Mahabarata War [ dharma sammudha cheta:] and Lord Krishna cleared it. He said that in the past he had laid down two paths [ dwividha nishta pura prokta] viz; sankhya ( inquiry) and Yoga (Karma) but these were lost due to passage of time. So he briefly explained them, but gave a new meaning to all the old concepts like yoga, yajna, karma, tyaga, sanyasa etc. Finally he said: “abandon all dharmas and surrender to me with single minded devotion”. This surrender /devotion [ ananya bhakti ] is called by all the great epithets in the Gita: guhya taram, guhya tamam. raja guhyam , paramam vacha (supreme word) etc. No other sadhana is called by such names. So we should take this as the supreme dharma.
4. The same doubt about dharma plagues Yudhishthira after the War. But Krishna does not teach him, but directs him to Bhishma who is considered an authority. Bhishma expounds all the dharmas. But after hearing them all (srutva dhraman aseshena ) Yudhishthira gets perplexed and asks Bhishma pointedly to tell him one supreme/essential dharma [ ko dharma sarva dharmanam bhavata: paramo mata:] Bhishma expounds Vishnu Sahasranama in reply. Thus again it is devotion that is extolled.
5. The Bhagavatam says very clearly that each Yuga had its own dhrma: Satya Yuga had dhyana; in Treta yuga it was tapas; in Dwaparayuga it was yajna. But In Kali yuga, these will not work or we will not be able to follow them. So Bhakti alone is prescribed for this Yuga.
6. when the Muslims invaded India, all the saints and sages only advocated simple bhakti to unite and strengthen the people.
7. Sri Bodhendra, 59th Pontiff of the Kanchi Mutt realised this. So he advocated Bhakti based on Nama sidhanta/ nama sankirtan as the way for this age. He said:
Kali kalmasha chittanam, papa dravya jeevinam
Vidhi karma vihinanam gati: Govinda kirtanam.
[ In this Kali age, our mind is full of impurities; we live by earning money in all prohibited ways; we perform karmas by violating/ not complying with the prescribed rules. Our only refuge is to chant the names of Govinda.]
Mutts like Kanchi/ Sringeri are traditional ie orthodox mutts. They have no power/authority to change things. But things are changing! See how things have changed with regard to Vedic education, Upanayanam, Marriage etc. brahmins are routinely crossing the seas and going abroad. Brahmin girls are getting highly educated, taking up jobs, pursuing careers, going abroad and postponing or avoiding marriage! All these are against sastras as they are now interpreted but no one cares! No Mutt speaks about /against such things. No swami speaks about Stri dharma now openly! They cannot approve the change, but they cannot stop it either!
8 Raja Ram Mohan Roy was definitely wrong. He was influenced by Western ways and Christian methods. He was not a Rishi or realised person. He was a tin horn reformer. Once one starts meddling with a system, there is no saying where it will end.
9. Ram Mohan Roy and his Brahmo Samaj followers were effectively answered and silenced by Sri Ramakrishna who said that our religion alone was eternal and true and all the others would prevail for some time and then fade away. He established the truth of our Scriptures by his own life. He said that the “way of Bhakti shown by Narada is only suitable for this Kali age. His authentic words can be read in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, and nowhere else. We cannot understand our religion without reading this book. [ Ramakrishna Math is a different matter.]
10. Bhagavan Ramana said: Enquire or Surrender, We must either Enquire into the truth of our own Self (Vichara) or we must surrender to God ( ananya bhakti).For this we do not need tons of scriptures. Here too we need only study the Collected Works of Bhagavan Ramana.( One small volume, in original Tamil.) Too many books create confusion : grantam is granti!
It is in the light of these Realised Jnanis that we can understand the correct path for actual practice. Pundits may dispute , but sincere sadhakas have no doubts.
True. Logic has no place in Atma Vichara.
Logic is useless in Self enquiry.
Mr Nanjappa,Thanks for saying Raja ram mohan Roy was wrong.Please try to bring sati back,so that every widow henceforth can jump and committ suicide-then at least she will not have to listen to your warped logic.Do you live a orthodox life?I presume you dont wear pants and shirts.Youdo not travel in petrol driven vehicles.A true manu Smriti follower.all the mutts will be proud of you.
Sat I was wrong.
So Rajaram was wrong and Sati should have continued according to you,right?What if i say widowers should jump into their dead wife’s pyre instead of looking around for another woman to satisfy their lust/Will you agree?Who are you to say that widows should be insulted and kill themselves on the pyre?Dors your family follow the system of sati or at least shaving the hear and wearing white?Follow and then preach,you shameless human being.
Madam,I agree with you totally.
THE MUTT HEADS ADVICE THEIR DEVOTEES,HOW A WIDOW SHOULD LIVE,A LIFE OD CELIBACY.a MUTT HEAD WANTS TO BE CELIBATE WITH A SHAVED HEAD,IS HIS OWN DESIRE.tHE SOCIETY HAS NO RIGHT TO DECIDE TO SHAME A WIDOW,JUST BECAUSE SHE WILL SEDUCE A CELIBATE SEER OR OTHER MEN.WHY HAVENT THE SHASTRAS ASKED A WIDOWER TO SHAVE HIS HEAD,WEAR BLACK, STOP SEEING OTHER WOMEN AND PRACTICE CELIBACY.WHO’S IDEA IS IT TO SAY THAT A WIDOW SHOULD BE LOOKED AFTER BY HER SON?HOW MISOGYNIST? WHAT IF A WIDOW DOES NOT HAVE A SON?SHOULD SHE BE PUSHED INTO THE FUNERAL PYRE OF HER HUSBAND.WHO IS MANU AND WHY SHOULD WE FOLLOW HIM?I DONT FIND KRISHNA OR RAMA FOLLOWING THE MALE CHAUVINISTIC PIG MANU’S SMRITI.IF SO KAUSALYA,SUMATRA AND KAIKEYI SHOULD HAVE COMMITTED SATI,BUT DID THEY/WHY DIDNT KUNTHI FALL INTO PANDU’S PYRE-VERY CONVENIENT TO SAY THAT HAD TO TAKE CARE OF HER CHILDREN,THEY COULD HAVE ALL FALLEN IN. WHY DID SATHYAVATHI KEEP LIVING ON AND ON AFTER HER HUSBAND DIED?AND HER DAUGHTERS IN LAW?DID THEY NOT FOLLOW THE SHASTRAS.NOT ONCE DID KRISHNA ASK HIS AUNT KUNTHI,WHY SHE DID NOT COMMIT SATI.OR WHY SHE DID NOT SHAVE HER HEAD.MAHABHARATHAM IS FULL OF MEN,MARRIED AND SINGLE,SHE OUGHT TO HAVE SHAVED HER HEAD AND SHAMED HERSELF, AND STOPPED MEETING MEN,FOR AS MANU SAYS WOMEN ARE BAD,THEY SEDUCE.
VISALAKSHI,ONLY YOU AND I WILL SPEAK OUT,THE OTHERS WILL REMAIN ARROGANT IN THEIR COCOON,SPEAKING CONVENIENT NONSENSE.
Please refer replies in this thread.The issue has been answered. No point in repeating .Please refrain from spamming.Regards
There is no historic evidence that Kanchi mutt was established by Adi Shankaracharya. My dear fool. Can you please come out with a single pramanam and evidence for this statement. DOnt vomit wherever you like. I respect and bow to all the Mahanaubavulus. Thyagraja Swamigal has sung. Yentharo Mahanubavulu anthariki vandhanamu he himspef being a Mahan and those lines are for stupid fellow like you. Are you a empty vessel. If you have some knowledge or properly read and understood about ancient Sanathana dharma and about Adi Shankaracharyas Avatar and his activities and contribution to the universe. Can u deny with a proper proven evidence that Sringeri was only a sthapana mutt of Adi Shankara Bagavath padal? Kanchi is moolamnaya sarvagnya peetam. Kanchi Kamakoti peetam doesnt falls under the four sthapana mutts. Adi Shankaracharya established four mutts across India in all directions to propogate Sanathan dharma and Sringeri Acharya parampara has not been directly initiated by Shankara Bagavath padhal. DO you know in between for several years there was no Acharya in Sringeri and chandramouleeswara pooja was perfromed by grahasthas. Even today Vaideeka Mutt Sastrigal performs chandramouleeswara pooja at sringeri. Sringeri mutt doesnt have that much rituals and Aacharaas as Kanchi mutt has. In Kanchi Mutt, Chandramouleeswar Thripurasundari pooja has not been performed or so far been touched by anyone except the Aacharya parampara right from Adi Shankara Bagavathpadal and chandramouleeswara pooja cannot be photographed. There are lots and lots of more information to share. I wil get back when time permits.