--- murali sampath <ingit@xxxx> wrote: > Sri Sudarshan, While unchavruthi was > essential, Swami > was contended with his way of living including unchavruthi. > > Swami was not begging for food. He was only leading a life that was > expected > of all Brahmins per unchavruthi. Swami chose to live this lifestyle > and not > as portrayed by you. If there was something pathethic around the > behavior of> the people of Kanchi or their neglect of Swami, that is something > different > and not to be confused around Swami's austere life and practices. > > Murali Sampath Dear Sri.Murali Sampath, Thank your for your comments. May I in turn seek some clarifications: You say (quote): "Swami was not begging for food. He was only leading a life that was expected of all Brahmins per unchavruthi. Swami chose to live this lifestyle and not as portrayed by you". Should we understand this to mean that in those days there were Brahmins who were quite well-off but still chose to go around doing "unchavrutti"? This seems very unlikely to me. ANd I refuse to believe our great ancestors were illogical. If 'unchavrutti' means "begging for food" why shouldn't we take it to mean simply what it means? Why the additional and needlessly fine distinction of 2 types i.e. (a) one undertaken out of necessity and (b) one of choice? One being real begging and the other being only 'ceremonial' begging? One being an inferior sort and the other superior? Are there any grounds for this? Adiyane has read from Vedic history that 'unchavrutti' was generally prescribed for 'brahmachari' students and their Vedic teacher in a 'guru-kulam'. They were expected to go around begging for food now and then looking for charity amongst the community. After they returned to the Master's house the grains would be collected by the 'dharma-patni' of the Master. She would cook the rice and first serve the students and her own children. Then she would offer the rest to her husband. If there was anything left she would consume it herself. This was only one way in which 'brahmachari' students in the Vedic times paid 'guru-dakshina' to their Master and his family. Begging also taught them some valuable lessons of life. It taught them how to be humble in receiving. It helped to gradually erase their ego... "ahambhAvam" and "ahamkAram". It also taught them that a guru's 'dharma-patni' sacrificed herself in their interest as much as the guru himself. And so women were as important in Vedic society as the men. Thus, as adiyane understands it, 'unchavrutti' was primarily a way in which the Vedic 'gurukula' system was designed to be supported by the rest of society. Brahmin teachers who otherwise could never afford to keep so many brahmacharin students at home and feed them, were thus encouraged by 'sAstrA' to undertake 'unchavruti'. But if the Vedic Master was a person of independent means, or if he enjoyed other means of social support for his 'guru-kulam' (say, a concession by the local king) he was not encouraged to go out on 'unchavrutti'. Adiyane believes strongly that there was a strong practical and social basis for 'unchavruti'. There was nothing inherently sanctimonious or virtuous about the practice. So, nothing is really detracted from Swami Desikan's 'vairAgyam' or greatness when we say that he lived by 'unchavrutti'. Adiyane has portrayed nothing, therefore, that is not as per what is already recorded in the available biographies of his. You also write that (quote): "If there was something pathethic around the > behavior of> the people of Kanchi or their neglect of Swami, that is something > different > and not to be confused around Swami's austere life and practices". This is where adiyane begs to differ. I think it is very pertinent to ask how in a holy place like Kanchi, a great centre of religion and philosophy in those days (rather than silk-sarees as it is in these days), why in those great times a noble person like Swami Desikan had to resort to 'unchavruti'? Why couldn't the community at that time offer support to one of its brightest stars so that he might never have to resort to 'unchavrutti'? It tells us something about the history of those times, doesn't it? If in our present times and place, hypothetically, a great and noble soul, highly venerated and loved, and living amongst us, were to somehow subsist only by going around 'unchavrutti' in the streets... would we not then all hang our heads in shame? Would the sight not then be "pathetic or un-dignified or both"? This is simply the point adiyane was trying to make and nothing else. Trust this matter stands clarified. Thanks and regards, dAsan, Sudarshan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |