04-05-2005, 06:45 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But I had heard rumours for more than ten years before about kanchi and other mathas, about how they were only interested in power and money, and women! Of course I disbelieved it all, but it kept repeating everywhere I went. They told me, "dont bother with them, they are doing pujas, eating like gluttons and putting on weight and warming the peedas only. They are not meditating or striving in tapas or interested in teaching the religion of propagating".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pathmarajah,
I have been reading your posts in this forum, relating to the kanchi mutt and the acharya and the "general moral decline of the mutt," as you implied.
None of your arguments or conclusion against the mutt and the acharya seems to be based on direct evidence or proof; on the contrary all your opinions and conclusion appears to be based on "anecdotal evidence" which then is being paraded as the collective sentiment of the majority. Every social scientist knows that an anectodal evidence makes an interesting or amusing reading - but is nothing more!
It is very easy to deride someone or an institution using opening statements such "there are many who say.....," "people say.....," "people feel....", "it is said that.....," "It is rumoured...." etc. Journalists do this all the time, passing off their own personal opinions on a social issue as wider public opinion or popular view. In the case of the Kanchi incidence, a lot of journals reported to this kind cheap, baseless journalism to undermine the mutt and its activities. Of course there were some journals who actually took the trouble to find ONE or TWO persons from the street, who disliked the mutt for some personal reason (possibly someone like you), and quoted them, trying to pass of these views as representative of wider public opinion.
It reminds me of a well-known western sociologist who was doing qualitative research in a non-western developing country. He is alleged to have had a general conversation on the social conditions and local politics, etc, with the driver, a local chap, while being driven to the community of his study. Later in his publication, he writes that "many people" in this society believe that sexual promiscuisoity has increased among young men and women and that premairtal sex is very common; elsewhere he writes again "people unanimously agree that moral values has declined and that this is leading to increase in perverted sexual behavior among younger generations. Basically, it turned out the driver was the "public" and this man views "the public opinion."
You seem to be resorting to the same kind of ploy, to substantiate your personal claims about the mutt. It is evident that you have grievances against the mutt for whatever reason. Fair enough; you are entitled to your likes and dislikes. But also remember that for every person you claim that dislikes the mutt, I can find at least two who love it, cherish it, and respect it even though they are NOT brahmins.
In fact, here's an anecdote for you: the person who introduced me to shankaracharya's philosophy and the kanchi mutt many decades ago was NOT a brahmin and that too NOT EVEN an upper-caste.
Well, as they say "Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pathmarajah,
I have been reading your posts in this forum, relating to the kanchi mutt and the acharya and the "general moral decline of the mutt," as you implied.
None of your arguments or conclusion against the mutt and the acharya seems to be based on direct evidence or proof; on the contrary all your opinions and conclusion appears to be based on "anecdotal evidence" which then is being paraded as the collective sentiment of the majority. Every social scientist knows that an anectodal evidence makes an interesting or amusing reading - but is nothing more!
It is very easy to deride someone or an institution using opening statements such "there are many who say.....," "people say.....," "people feel....", "it is said that.....," "It is rumoured...." etc. Journalists do this all the time, passing off their own personal opinions on a social issue as wider public opinion or popular view. In the case of the Kanchi incidence, a lot of journals reported to this kind cheap, baseless journalism to undermine the mutt and its activities. Of course there were some journals who actually took the trouble to find ONE or TWO persons from the street, who disliked the mutt for some personal reason (possibly someone like you), and quoted them, trying to pass of these views as representative of wider public opinion.
It reminds me of a well-known western sociologist who was doing qualitative research in a non-western developing country. He is alleged to have had a general conversation on the social conditions and local politics, etc, with the driver, a local chap, while being driven to the community of his study. Later in his publication, he writes that "many people" in this society believe that sexual promiscuisoity has increased among young men and women and that premairtal sex is very common; elsewhere he writes again "people unanimously agree that moral values has declined and that this is leading to increase in perverted sexual behavior among younger generations. Basically, it turned out the driver was the "public" and this man views "the public opinion."
You seem to be resorting to the same kind of ploy, to substantiate your personal claims about the mutt. It is evident that you have grievances against the mutt for whatever reason. Fair enough; you are entitled to your likes and dislikes. But also remember that for every person you claim that dislikes the mutt, I can find at least two who love it, cherish it, and respect it even though they are NOT brahmins.
In fact, here's an anecdote for you: the person who introduced me to shankaracharya's philosophy and the kanchi mutt many decades ago was NOT a brahmin and that too NOT EVEN an upper-caste.
Well, as they say "Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"