You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Oct 2001

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00016 Oct 2001

 
Oct 2001 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


--- In tiruvengadam@xxxx, "Sudarshan M.K." <sampathkumar_2000@xxxx> 
wrote:
--- In tiruvengadam@xxxx, "Sudarshan M.K." <sampathkumar_2000@xxxx> 
wrote:
> Dear friends,
> Continuing from the earlier post, the human values that Swami 
> Venkatanathan stood for in his lifetime were mainly 2 in number viz:
> 
> (1) "gnyAnam" and 
> (2) "vairAgyam"

> At the time Swami wrote the "vairAgya-panchakam" he was living in 
> Kanchipuram. His personal and social circumstances were rather 
> difficult at that time. His income was meagre and erratic. The
needs > of his family were growing. A career in full-time poetry,
philosophy > and theological research in which he was engaged, in 
those days as it > is even now, was not exactly the best hope in life 
for a man with a > family to feed and protect. Venkatanathan was 
virtually begging in > the streets of Kanchi for food. If the
practice 
of "unchavrutti" > (begging for food) had not been ordained by the 
Vedic 'sAstrA-s' as > being proper and quite becoming of an orthodox 
Brahmin as > Venkatanathan was,one would have called his plight
either 
pathetic,> or un-dignified, or most probably, both.


Dear friends,
A couple of members have written to me about the above passage of 
mine. They sound a little uncomfortable with the description by me of 
Swami Venkatanathan's plight being "either pathetic, or un-dignified, 
or most probably, both". They have requested me to clarify.

As I indicated above, in the Vedic charter of conduct in those days, 
"unchavrutti" (begging for food) was perfectly respectable for 
orthodox Brahmins. So if Swami Venkatanathan was able to subsist in 
Kanchi thanks to the tradition of "unchavrutti", there was nothing 
"un-dignified or pathetic" about it from the stand-point of 'sAstra'.

What was "pathetic" or "un-dignified" nonetheless about 
Venkatanathan's "unchavrutti" was that the citizens or members of the 
SriVaishnava community in Kanchi at that time sat back and allowed 
things to come to such a pass and that someone as noble as Swami was 
reduced to circumstances compelling him to go around begging for food.

There is a lesson in all this that we in these modern times must 
learn: 

Even in the best of times when people generally respect and cherish 
tradition and the past, persons engaged in religious learning and 
spiritual endeavour tend to be neglected by their communities. The 
callousness of a community easily renders the plight of "mumukshu-s" 
very difficult indeed. It is then that we will witness noble but 
simple souls reduced to penury and harship. It is then that we may 
find them struggling to make a livelihood by means such as 
"unchavrutti".

"unchavrutti" actually brought no disgrace whatosoever to Swami 
Venkatanathan personally. It did bring pathetic indignity however to 
the whole community of Kanchi in those times since they'd let such a 
sorry fate befall one of their illustrious sons.

The lesson for us is this: Our present-day Vaishnava communities too 
should ensure that its Venkatanathans do not have to live by 
"unchavrutti". Otherwise we too might fit adiyane's description of 
being "either pathetic, or un-dignified, or most probably, both". 

Adiyane hopes the above clarifies matters.

Thanks and regards,
dAsan,
Sudarshan
--- End forwarded message ---






[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list