Dear Uncle,

The story you told me provoked a lot of thought, the one about Sundaramoorthy
Nayanar and the 'unqualified' Brahmin (whose name escapes me). I think we have been misreading this
particular event and since you say it is a historically true one, it behooves me to point out certain
elements in it, which I, in my little wisdom, think you may have not noticed, or perhaps forgotten to
mention to me. I confess even as I begin that this will be long essay. I want to title this one 'A Case For
Love'. And an apology: if somewhere along the way if I sound like I am judging you and your
relationship with the Lord, it is because I am indeed doing so. I cannot help it. But I also want you to
understand that I am taking this benefit on the grounds that I love you and love the one you too love.
Our mutual love of truth, or an aspect of truth warrants also critical appraisal of each other. Here
the nephew-uncle bond is discounted and we are two seekers of the same reality, two blind men
trying to explain to each other, what an elephant looks like. So forgive me for my sins as I forgive you
for yours, if any.
To begin with, I will recount the story as you told me and try to extrapolate certain aspects of it to
understand it better.
There is this Unqualified Brahmin (from here he shall be simply called U-Brahmin and yes! the
emphasis is deliberate) who provide Sundaramoorthy's household with greens. Sundarar who likes
how delicious it is, wants to meet the one who gave it. And they meet and Sundarar heaps praises on
the green which he has been supplying him and here at this juncture the U-Brahmin places a request
and that is that he is conducting a 'homa' and that Lord Shiva should come in person and receive the
part of the sacrifice proper to him. First Sundarar hesitates and then says okay to it. He says arrange
for everything and give me the time and date. Goes to his friend Thiyagaraja Swami at the temple
and speaks his plan. Of course Shiva, (with his trikala darshana, i.e. with this three fold vision of past
present and future) is outraged and first condemns saying: Sundara, goddammit! How dare you take
our friendship for granted? What part of you was thinking when you obliged to do something as
scandalous as this! Do you think that brahmin is qualified for having a vision of me? How dare you,
usurp my authority? Terribly disappointed Sundu. Terribly! On and on he rants for sometime and
then says, This is will be the last time, got it, Sundu? Sundaramoorthy smiles and nods Yes! My
lord! And Shiva who is Lord of plays has a catch in this. He says: Now, I will come in any form,
when I say any form, I mean any form and if you don't recognize me, then I won't be to blame. I have
kept my side of the deal. Got it? Sundara's answer is again affirmative.
So, on the day of the grand sacrifice, the Brahmins flock around the fire and keep pouring ghee and

stuff in the fire. When the sacrifice proper to Lord Shiva is at hand, as promised Shiva arrives. Two
dog-eating gypsies. Shiva and Parvati, clad in animal skin and with dogs and totally filth ridden, they
arrive. All the so called, Brahmins, the agnihotris flee. With only Sundaramoorthy and U-Brahmin
still standing, they recognize their Lord, after all. The rest of the story is not of interest to us. Now
this is a story with a happy ending. I totally agree with you.
You interpreted the entire story on Shiva's reprimanding Sundaramoorthy. While I understand what
you are trying to convey, I want to voice my own interpretation of this particular event and as this as
the background, perhaps, try and understand our relationship to that Lord himself.
First of all, let us recap a bit. Though Shiva is the eternal lord, he seems to have a personal history,
his idiosyncrasy is legendary. Shiva, the Lord, the passionate lover, the realistic husband, the madman
roaming the charnel grounds, the supreme beggar with legendary compassion and temper,
decapitated Brahma, the Creator's fifth head because it showed lopsided growth is myth well known
to all. Then he roams the whole universe as a Kapali, one carrying the Skull for a begging bowl, until
settling down at the place that we know today as Benaras. It's one of Shiva's stronghold. First he is
Bhairava, the terrible and goes out naked scandalizing rishis and seducing their wives. Though you
may want to retort here saying that his nudity represents supreme freedom, the iconography is
without such ambiguity. The ancient Indians had no scruples representing their sexuality and
therefore the sexuality in the divine. Sex played an important role in ancient India and it's pretty
much obvious in out iconography and temple sculpture. What we need to notice is here is that the
ancients did not have a separate sexual and spiritual life, separate divine and secular life. It was
inextricably intertwined. Why isn't Linga itself nothing but an erect phallus standing firmly on Yoni,
the vulva? So finally when he calmed down he was called Bhikshatana, the supreme mendicant or the
supreme beggar. As we call him he became a Pandaram. And then we had entire sect following this
aspect of Shiva, as the Kapala, the Aghoris. The most famous skull carrying beggar, Kapala from
Odiana, Pakistan, Guru Padmasambhava went to the place which we today know as Tibet and there
he established Vajrayana Buddhism, this tantric form of Buddhism adopted from India the technique,
just shifting names to suit their taste for sound. Even then Bhairava, Smashan Tara are very
important deities in Vajrayana. This may seem quite irrelevant but let me defer this for later.
Answer this to yourself. Shiva who is the ruler of the universe, the mover of the moved, the speaker
in the spoken, the thinker in the thought, how could he not know that this U-Brahmin was going to
place such a scandalous proposal at Sundara's feet? And Sundara was going to oblige to it? Then,
Sundara, who was by the time this was happening, was so established in his divine consciousness that
he could address the Lord of the Universe himself as 'You' and treat him equal like a friend. He could
just walk in on Shiva and say: Look man, I need a favor. Now could not Sundara see if this man was

truly qualified or not? If he did, then why didn't the request meet with a denial. If not, then was
Sundara's judgment so poor as not to see what we can see? Surely, it is the former case. He saw that he
was not indeed qualified and yet he obliged to his request. This is a pivotal moment. The question to
ask his why? Why did Sundara say yes and then the Lord himself say yes. Surely this seems
contradictory to Shiva's argument saying he was not qualified for it. What is the missing link then.
Where did we lose the thread. This contradiction exists only in your interpretation. As I see it,
Sundaramoorthy and the Lord, both said a big yes to this man's wish precisely because he was in no
way qualified, no way near the perfection of being a servant, a slave and a saint of God. Seeing
that one is blind requires a certain vision, realizing that we are imperfect requires certain perfection!
I will explain why I say so. Arunagiri who bathed day and night in debauchery got the beatific vision
of Lord Shanmuga when he jumps off the temple tower at Tiruvanamalai. St. Paul the murderer of
Christians is made one of his prime apostles when Jesus Christ strikes him with a blinding light.
There are at least five instances I can tell you when people who were entirely unprepared, actively
opposing the work of grace were simply and overwhelmingly, violently won over by God to be his
saint upon earth. Why this injustice? There are a million other souls, who pray day and night,
ceaselessly, never touched wine or woman, never went anywhere near a brothel, meditated 24X7 and
yet have no sign of grace in their life. This is because these men and women have prided themselves
upon false-piety. Jesus warns very sternly against this. He asks us not to show anyone that we are in
any way related to god. If you do, people will admire you. But that is your ultimate reward. A few
words of syrupy praise heaped on your head. But Mary Magdalene, a prostitute got nearer to Christ
than anyone. She is the first one to see the resurrected Christ. I have made my point. It is our very
imperfection which cries out to be redeemed, which when screams in the labors of delivering real
virtue, catches the divine attention and turns it upon us. Then god may nurse our broken spirits.
Ramakrishna once said to his disciples As long as you're happy with your toys, mother doesn't care.
But the moment you drop them and start crying, even if there is no reason, she comes running and
picks you up! That is exactly my point. Our imperfection is the working site of grace. Our sins are
the raw material. Our wounds become it's tool. Run into disaster if you want to be saved. That is how
I think grace works.
Then again you posited when we conversed on the use of god given Reason (verb form, the
intellectual faculty) in our search for the divine. Here I am less than convinced with your point of
view. Reason is a tool of the ego, of the rational mind. Reason works based on reasons (noun form).
If Reason did not understand that a mother's labor is ultimately going to be the deliverance of new
life, it will argue that Woman should not child bear. That is how it works. Think about it. When the
heart seeks the divine, it asks what will 'I' gain. The truth is you will not gain anything. You will lose

everything. Every last thing which you imagine is yours. The loss of 'I', 'Me' and 'Mine' is the death
of Ego, the death of rational mind. In the divine life, the individual dies and the infinite is born. It is
very useful tool to make money, make a living, get a job, cook food, fix you bike or a broken fan or
something. But when your end is the Divine, rationality is redundant. In fact, using Logic, we can
prove or disprove anything. Godel's theorem does it for you. With perfect Logic you can prove one
thing and with the same perfection you can prove the opposite without wincing. What was the Logic,
when Rumi sent away his pupils so he could exclusively spend time with the love of his life and
teacher, Shams of Tabriz. What was the logic behind Mirabai's love, that crazy queen who went on
harping how beatific Krishna's Childhood in Brindhavan was. How logical was Hafiz, the Sufi poet's
madness to take possession of the maker of angels, Allah. How logical was St. Francis of Assisi when
he ripped himself nude in the court of law before everyone when his father asked him to renounce his
dress on the grounds that he had got it and not god. How logical can love get, uncle. Love is blind or
it doesn't want to see. How reasonable is it that we are existing and this world exists. Reason is the
eye of cynicism in the head of wonder.
Here again we encounter the problem of irrational behavior among the god-intoxicated. Purity and
nobility when don't serve Love are but a burden and a heavy one that too. We can as well drop the
facade and go about indulging in all kinds of nonsense. What I find especially disturbing in your faith
and love, is how you conveniently make up for your lack of trust with rationality. When you can't
believe, reason you say. When you can't act upon trust, act upon reason. But for me, my faith is firmly
founded on reason. My faith brings me reason and reason strengthens my faith, in a circle. Moments
of doubt do come. But doubt is, paradoxical as it may sound, is a part of trust. I have wondered if at
all there is a god. If at all he cares. Have you ever wondered, if you were born a christian, would you
love Shiva as you do now. If you were a Muslim or a Buddhist, would you have the chance to get to
know Him? All this has been given to us. Tradition of thousands of years handed down to us. Rituals
and dogma are redundant in this age. The wisdom of Hindu thought is how beautifully it understands
this fact. From time to time, standards change, though the essence remains. This is Kali, the Iron Age,
when thinking of right and wrong is so muddled that one gets giddy. So the best is to concur with the
divine will. And what is the divine will whatever happens! What else is there other an God? What
else, really? (Think on this!) Do you understand how had you been named something else you would
utterly believe it and answer to it? This is all just a part of our education. At school, at home and
everywhere! So, is there a sacred reality which is not given to us. Which we can pioneer? I say yes!
There is One. And how do you find it? By dropping everything we already know, neti neti, the residual
silence which remains is that which is too sacred to be named. This is the way of knowledge. Going
inward asking who am I? So Shiva is just a convenient name and a lovable one for that Unnameable,

Indistinguishable, Ultimate Reality. It is indistinguishable because we are that. Who can say what is
what, in that ultimate state. Jiva is Shiva. Shivoham!
Another thing I realized. Why do you think the greatest teaching is no teaching at all. Lord just asks
us to SHUT UP! Because there is no two. There is no you and me. There is no teacher and no student.
Divine and Human are one. There is nobody to realize the truth, if you understood this, there is
nothing more. There is only truth. There is life and nobody to live it. Realizing that individuality is a
society given fiction, Ravishankar, the name, the job, the place in society and family, everything, even
God himself has been given to you. Without all this who are you? You see there is really no you, no
separate unique special YOU! No me, either. So in this ineffable state if I say: You're not
enlightened! doesn't it show that the speaker has missed the point. That is why all kept silent about
it. Kandavar Vindilar, Vindavar Kandilar!
The path of Love is full of thorns. With a bleeding feet we meet our Love. To understand that there
is no separation between yourself and your beloved, is the end of this path. First I saw God in the
hill, then I saw the Hill in everyone and finally I see only god through and through and through. Who
is to be qualified for what? The joke was on those Brahmins who fled the fire, when Shiva came and
upon us. Surrender means surrendering through and through. Anything less than totality is nothing
with the Lord. That is my interpretation of the story. Lord is a taboo-buster. From time to time he
breaks his own standards. May be just to say: See, I am the God! And not you! He kicked death
bringing suffering to the earth. He eloped with Daksha's daughter scandalizing everyone. Then he
decapitated his own son, vesting superpower into the hands of asuras with the complete
foreknowledge of what havoc and anarchy there are going to wreak. His crimes are numerous. And
yet the sages call him Shiva The Auspicious. The truly auspicious is beyond all names and norms.
That is what Shiva proved again and again and in almost all his act. Thus I rest my case, a case for
love. There is a famous Nath saying: When you don't ask you get milk, when you ask you get water,
when you take you take blood!
P.S: What are you so afraid of losing anyway? What is there to lose which hasn't been already lost?
After all, the day we were born, we already started dying! Our fates are sealed. Why take it so
seriously?
P.P.S: Forgive me for this preposterously written essay-letter. But I'd be glad if you celebrate it. Love
you, nonetheless!
Your fellow-seeker