--- 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 ---
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |