You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Sep 2006
Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00084 Sep 2006
Sep 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [Oppiliappan] munivaahana bhoham and vedaartha saMgraha
- From: Saroja Ramanujam <sarojram18@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
- List-id: <Oppiliappan.yahoogroups.com>
I am not a great scholar but after having gone through the discussion on 'kapyasm pundarikam I wish to make some comments.
1. There is such athing as Arsham and as such the words in the vedas could not be interpreted according to grammar and other rules especially when vedas are apourusheya.Panini himself gave rules only for existing words and words were not formed according to his rules.Dictionary and other works are not exaustive.
2. Shankara could not have known about the translation of Ramanuja as he lived before Ramanuja's time.Moreover shankara's explanation may be so because the purusha seen inside the Su is not the LOrd for him as Brahman is nirguna and formless in advaita and as such he might have no compunction in giving such explanation.
3.According to visishtadvait doctrine Brahman is synonymous with Narayana and R amanuja was right in giving such explantio as he did as vedas would not have meant such
comparison to the eyes of the Lord.
4. I don't know of any special significance of 'eva' except that it means 'only' and the lotus may be compared to the eyes of the purusha seen in the Sun in a metaphorical sense and not as a simple comparison in which case it would have been 'iva '
5. Above all both Ramanuja ans sankara were avathara purushas and had the capacity to communicate directly wit the Lord and to discuss whio is right and who is wrong requires a calibre not less than that of a Vedantadesika or a Madhusudanasarasvathi which we are not.We could only take the meanong which appeals to us and leave it at that because I think that it is the height of impudence to try to pass judgement as to who is right and who is wrong. We can only explain what the acharyas say and not try to judge them.
If any of the well versed scholars come out with arguments other than the above I stand corrected.
As I am not a
member of the forum I present my wviews to our group and if sri jalasayanan so wish he may include it there.
Dr.SarojaRamanujam,M.A., Ph.D, (visishtadvaita)sioromani in sanskrit(advaita)
jalasayanan <jalasayanan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
shrii swaamin:
1.
munivaahana
bhoham - All devanagiri maNipravaala scripts been converted to tamil scripts, hence will be easy to read. Citations are provided in devanagiri and tamil
2.
vedaartha saMgraha - Fully in devanagiri, Also we have uploaded a downloadable PDF file - link available over the forum,
Further, request all swaamins to help us clarifying visishtadvaitin stance on "tasya yatha kapyaasam pundariikam evam akshini", as it has been questioned by advaitins now -
Click here to see more detailsregards Dasan Jalasayanan
May god bless you,
Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit.
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low
PC-to-Phone call rates.
__._,_.___
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
__,_._,___
[Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index ]
[
Thread Index ]
[
Author Index ]