The modern rationalist approach puts significant pressure on writers and speakers discussing religious subjects. If they remain faithful to the text and the religious tradition (Sampradaya), their explanations often appear irrational to modern audiences. Conversely, if they try to accommodate modern demands and critical analysis, they risk deviating from the text and the tradition they represent.
Two case studies illustrate this dilemma.
Sri Indra Sowndararajan, currently sharing teachings and stories from the life of the last Jagat Guru, Kamakoti Chandrasekar Saraswati Swamiji (popularly known as ‘Maha-Periyava’), faces similar challenges (Podigai Channel, Tamil, “Kanchiyin Karinaikkadal,” Monday to Friday, 7:15 to 7:30 AM). On April 21, 2015, Sowndararajan mentioned that some of his listeners were unhappy with his narrations of the miracles performed by Maha-Periyava. They preferred him to focus on the teachings rather than miraculous events. However, Sowndararajan believes that sharing these incidents makes the teachings more relatable, helping people to remember and apply them in their lives with inspiration.
Like many speakers on religious subjects, Sowndararajan walks a tightrope. He must present Maha-Periyava as a great saint and jnani, while also meeting the expectations of some followers who view him as an incarnation of Sri Adi Sankara or even Lord Shiva himself. Maha-Periyava, having been elevated to divine status, requires Sowndararajan to share miraculous stories to validate these claims. However, this approach displeases rational and intellectual followers, who resist viewing Maha-Periyava through a lens of miracles and divinity.
On April 22, 2015, Sowndararajan shared a story from Maha-Periyava’s life:
During a pradosham puja near Villuppuram, a young boy asked Maha-Periyava for a bull owned by the Mutt. This was surprising, as Mutt property couldn’t be given away lightly. However, Maha-Periyava, speaking on the boy’s level, promised to give him the bull when he reached the fifth grade. Two years later, the boy, now in sixth grade, reminded Maha-Periyava of his promise. When Maha-Periyava pointed out that the promise was for when the boy reached fifth grade, the boy’s mother explained that he had been promoted directly from fourth to sixth grade. Despite this, Sowndararajan concluded the story by highlighting Periyava’s foresight, though he did not clarify whether the boy ultimately received the bull.
Rational-minded followers would likely question this incident. If Maha-Periyava did not fulfill his promise based on technicalities, was he misleading the boy to protect the Mutt’s property? Such contradictions frustrate intellectual followers who prefer to see Periyava as a jnani rather than a prophet or miracle worker. They argue that elevating religious figures through miraculous stories diminishes their true greatness.
Nevertheless, Sowndararajan can’t ignore the fact that many listeners find inspiration in these stories. As he mentioned, although some followers dislike these narratives, many others have expressed their encouragement through phone calls and emails. This highlights the broader challenge faced by religious speakers, who must cater to a wide range of followers with differing expectations.
The real issue doesn’t lie with speakers like Sowndararajan or with religious texts themselves. Sowndararajan even admitted that if Maha-Periyava were alive, he wouldn’t approve of the miraculous stories. He would likely prefer his teachings to be shared instead. However, religious leaders and scriptures, once elevated to authoritative status, often cannot satisfy the demands of modern rationalist, intellectual, and elitist approaches. The key question is: who needs to change?
Rationalists must understand that they are a minority among the general populace. They should either ignore such narratives or approach them with the same flexibility they apply to other areas of life—such as love, care, and romance—where excessive rationalism doesn’t always provide the best answers.
An example of resolving these contradictions comes from Dr. Venkata Krishnan, who shares about the Divyaprabandham (Podigai TV, “Naldorum Nalairam,” Monday to Friday, 7:00 to 7:15 AM). He discussed a Pasuram by Periyazhvar, where Sita is described as narrating the incident involving the demon crow, Kakasura, wounding her. Although this incident was originally recounted by Rama to Hanuman in the Ramayana, Periyazhvar changes it. Dr. Krishnan emphasized that it doesn’t matter whether Rama or Sita narrated the event; what matters is the experience Periyazhvar had while recounting it.
Similarly, when discussing the historicity of Antal, Dr. Krishnan pointed out that while traditional sampradaya claims Antal lived thousands of years ago, modern historians place her around 1,000-1,500 years ago.1 His response to this discrepancy: “Let it be.” Tradition stands as it is, and either one accepts it or doesn’t.
So, even as rationalists protest, religious traditions are rooted in trust, not rationalization. Does this mean there’s no place for a rational approach to scripture and tradition? The answer is both yes and no. It depends on a few factors:
1. What should be our approach to scripture and tradition?
2. Plain reading of texts won’t help—interpretation is key.
3. If other aspects of life (love, care, etc.) don’t fit neatly within rationalistic frameworks, why should religion?
4. Religious traditions accommodate everyone’s needs, so take what resonates with you and respect others’ approaches.
5. Ultimately, the test of any approach is its impact on life. Whichever approach helps one live for the common good, that’s the one to pursue.
Notes:
1 Modern scholarship places Tiruppavai in the ninth century, while Sri Vaishnava tradition places it around 3,000 BC—D. Dennis Hudson, Krishna’s Mandala: Bhagavata Religion and Beyond, Oxford, 2010, p. 254.
Leave a Reply