While stating that “Kanchi is not among the four recognised peeths established by the Adi Sankaracharya“, the Shankaracharya of Dwarka Shardapeeth Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, said: “The constant reference by the media to Jayendra Saraswati as Shankaracharya is an insult to the revered post. He is simply the priest of a religious sect“.

[This is indeed an old issue. The fact of the matter is that in the “11th century AD, Adi Shankaracharya established four peeths to protect vedic dharma. These were the Jyotishpeeth at Badrikashram, Shardapeeth at Dwarka, Sringeripeeth and Puripeeth. Later, the heads of these four peeths and the vidyut parishad (gathering of learned scholars) accorded their recognition to a fifth peeth — Kanchi Kamakothipeetham.

The difference of opinion that now exists in this matter, if one may indeed call it that, is evident in this October 1998 Indian Express article: Now, Shankaracharyas will have to measure up to VHP yardstick.]

The Deccan Herald today reports that while voicing appreciation for the social work done by the Kanchi Kamkoti Mutt under the guidance of Jayendra Saraswati, Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati described the arrest per se as “unfortunate”.

But to me, the most important part of the statement by the Shankaracharya came when he noted that the arrest had failed to stir the sentiments of Hindus as Jayendra Saraswati had been arrested in a criminal matter.

The Shankaracharya said, “The followers of Sanatam dharma are shocked by the involvement of one of the guardians of our religion in a crime so heinous“.

Something I have been saying all along.

God help save Hinduism and Sanathana Dharma from its own saviours!

Note: Added ‘[‘ ‘]’ to reduce further “confusion” in the post…

6 Comments

  1. Something I have been saying all along.

    God help save Hinduism and Sanathana Dharma from its own saviours!

    So, you have pronounced him guilty, eh? Rather unreasonable.

    1. No way, Arun. The matter is sub-judice. And I am no judge.

      I said: God help save Hinduism and Sanathana Dharma from its own saviours!

      That includes EVERY single seer, pontiff, guru, psychic, godman, et al, who is engaged in activities detrimentous to the interests of “Hinduism,” and I am NOT speaking politically here…

      🙂
      Nakul

      1. And why would you say that if you hadn’t thought he was guilty. That’s just throwing statements around for the sake of argument.

        1. Did I, really?

          “Innocent till proven guilty” – That’s the way it goes, and that’s the way it stands buddy. Read ANY of my earlier posts on this matter, and I have indeed been consistent on this matter.

          And please, let’s not go about making accusations like: That’s just throwing statements around for the sake of argument. 😉

          If you look at the context in which the original piece was posted, it is basically quoting what the Shankaracharya of Dwarka Shardapeeth said.

          The Shankaracharya said, “The followers of Sanatam dharma are shocked by the involvement of one of the guardians of our religion in a crime so heinous”.

          Yes! My post was to reiterate my stand that people did not come out in opposition (or express their issue) simply because they were too shocked to be confronted with the news that one of their most respected seers was accused of a crime so ghastly (if it was indeed NOT mere disinterest in the whole affair).

          The words “Something I have been saying all along” I thought conveyed this clearly (IMHO).

          I still do NOT see where I have insinuated that I think that the Kanchi seer IS guilty. I have NOT delved into that topic at all.

          But now that you say I have (well, all of us have the right to think the way we feel), let me ask you:
          Guilty or not, should we utilise the same parameters as “applied” by the government at the centre regarding charge-sheeted citizens NOT holding a political office, while under trial, to religious heads too?

          Nakul

          PS: I have now separated a related exlanation that was offered in the original post with paranthasis to try and reduce “confusion” in the post…

          1. Re: Did I, really?

            “Innocent till proven guilty”

            That is heartening to know 🙂 I guess I misunderstood you then. My apologies.

            Charge-sheeted citizens not holding political office, while under trial?

            🙂 Lol, if only that was the case in the spirit of the law. But I don’t think I can give an easy yes/no answer to your question. There are ifs, buts and conditionalities involved. In this specific case, I would say No.

            Btw, I don’t agree with your stand about people’s reactions, I think shock is part of the rason, but there are many other factors. In any case let’s not debate that.

            Btw, about the paranthesized portion, I think it is the 8th century AD (780 or thereabouts), at least that’s what my history books taught me. Why Kanchi think it’s 500 BC, I don’t know. For false prestige, either Kanchi or the other mutts certainly has changed history to suit themselves, which is a pity.

          2. Re: Did I, really?

            Yep. Good to set aside the differences in that way 😉

            You said: I think it is the 8th century AD (780 or thereabouts), at least that’s what my history books taught me.

            You are correct. Adi Shankaracharya is said to have lived between c 788 – 820 AD. Further, (in the same article) he is stated to have died at the age of 32.

            About the “people’s (non)reaction” here’s an extract from the news report dated November 14, 2004 from the Indian Express, that you might interesting:

            Protests and condemnations may continue elsewhere over the arrest and incarceration of Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, but his home turf just doesn’t care.

            There has hardly been any protest in this temple town, three days after the high profile Shankaracharya was carted off on a murder charge. The only exception, if one, was a BJP-sponsored protest meeting last night — it had less than twenty participants.

            🙂

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: