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

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00018 Oct 2001

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


--- 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




[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