> This, IMHO, is very true. The baabus-turned-into-'English-speaking brahmin'
> are in fact doing a disservice to themselves. My grandmother, who was taught by
> her paNDita father, probably knows more about vedaanta than most 'English-speaking
> brahmins' I know; but I can't generalize from one instance.
Well let me give another example. Thiru Anna Subramanian was the
Principal of RK Mission high school and very prominent in the RK
circles. He is also quite close to the Sringeri people. His scholarship
is extremely good. My grandmother wasn't English educated and she didn't
know anything about Vedanta. So what's the point?
While some English speaking people may not know enough about religion it
is ridiculous to condemn Vivekananda for that. It is to the credit of
Vivekananda that he was trying to address such an audience also.
> >[For arguments' sake, let's assume that some smArtas and other
> >brahmins find Vivekananda and other neo-Hindu proponents relevant.
> >Brahmins constitute 2-3% of the population of Tamil Nadu, and
> >less than 5% of Hindu India as a whole. Only if the average,
> >temple-going Hindu is left out of the accounting does neo-Hinduism
> >become relevant in general.]
>
> Yes, one cannot generalize from one example or from one's experience (its
> statistically invalid anyway!) and its all a matter of opinion after
> all. :-)
Then better state it as an opinion instead of presenting it as some
unalloyed, incontrovertible truth. If that had been the case, I'd have
hardly even bothered to reply to the initial mail.
> Maybe that could be a reason why he was more 'open' to this section. Just
> speculating.
More importantly, sha.nkara was trying to defeat other vedanta schools
and was hence being complete. Swamiji may not have cared too much for
these passages and he has the right to neglect them if he wants to. To
expect everyone to be as complete as sha.nkara is extremely ridiculous.
In the present context there is no need to dwell on those passages.
Ramakrishnan.
Advertise with us! |
|