maNi,
it looks like you took my mail(s) to be some sort of
a diatribe. Rest assured that it is not. It is very
surprising, for I was supporting your view that there
can be no 100% evidence on these things, and was just
providing some of my views on how hearsay does not
necessarily mean did-not-happen.
--quote from maNi's mail
It's not as easy to tar the Vedas or Prabandham with
the same brush, for many reasons. For the Vedas, there
is a relatively uniform text across all Sruti
paramparAs all across the country, and what
differences exist are honestly recognized as different
SAkhas or acceptable pAtha-bhedas.
----end quote from maNi's mail
Precisely that is the point I wish to make. Our oral
tradition indeed has resulted in a relatively stable
transmission of thoughts/scriptures through
generations. This should give us some confidence that
not all of the oral histories transmitted through
generations are false. {Conversely, we have to accept
that not all of our oral histories are factual
either}.
Now, one may make a case that the vedas were passed
down without change because there were no ulterior
motives then, and in our case some people might have
embellished the truth (or deleted the truth) and hence
it is not reliable. But here, who is to decide which
of our oral history is accurate, and which is not? And
unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of
throwing out everthing that is not "incontrovertible
evidence like a stone carving" as most of the history
we have of us has been passed through oral tradition.
If I take the above stance and throw out all oral
history, I might conclude that ramanuja had 10
followers, as I may find only 10 names in all of
the stone carvings available...Sure, history tells
me that ramanuja was in melkOte and hence I can
verify that, but it does not tell me that there
were thousands of followers there! So why are
they claiming that ramanuja had more than 10
followers?
Actually, I can also question the accuracy of the
written scriptures/stone carvings - After all,
there was the person who dictated the material and
the transcriber who transcribed the material on
the palm leaf in many cases. How does one know that
the transcriber wrote *exactly* what was dictated?
And, while making copies what is the guarantee that
the second transcriber did not insert/delete
anything? How does one provide "proof" that
kUrattAzhvAn did not modify rAmAnujA's words in
srIbhAshyam and wrote what he wanted? And how do I
*prove* that someone did not pay off the sculptor of
some "kalvettu" to write something false?
So, we really cannot find *incontrovertible evidence*
in these things. We just have to determine
the plausibility of some oral tradition based on
what we have from other sources. And then decide
whether to believe in it or not. Or better, in
cases where there is no circumstantial/oral/
written/commonsense evidence that we are prepared
to accept, we can just be non-judgemental about it
knowing that there can be no 100% correct answer
either way. Just as those who believe that a
particular oral tradition is accurate cannot prove
the accuracy, one cannot prove that it is inaccurate
either.
---quote from maNi's mail
I don't think it's appropriate to conflate this
discussion with the Vadagalai/Thengalai temple
disputes; that's pretty inflammatory and unnecessary.
---- end quote----
It is unfortunate that you took it that way. I was
just using it as an example of a hearsay that is
highly improbable, and obviously was not trying to
conflate two totally different topics. I do not see
anything inflammatory in what I wrote. I am surprised
that you perceived something inflammatory about it.
--quote from maNi's mail
I don't think there's anything diabolical in the
origins of the story that Anandalvan was the impetus
behind the Emberumaanaar sannidhi, or that
Emberumaanaar himself started the Pedda Jeeyar
Matha. They very well may be true. But
they very well may not be true as well, and it appears
that there is no solid evidence indicating that it is
fact.
----- end quote
I am not sure there is anything in the above para,
that I had disagreed with in my previous mail, other
than giving a higher weightage to whatever "evidence"
is available than you do. Your use of the
word "story" does provide a clue that you might have
judged this issue already.
----quote from maNi's mail
Normally, there are many inscriptions which indicate
endowments by or for a Matha, usually named, to help
in the temple services, to help with making garlands,
providing prasaadam for bhAgavatas, providing for
pArAyana and adhyApana, etc.
-----end quote
Actually, it is not normal to have "many"
inscriptions. Not many temples have inscriptions, and
even among those that have inscriptions, not many have
inscriptions that cover all aspects of the temple. The
absence of an inscription does not preclude anything
from having happened.
-----quote from maNi's mail
I think it is reasonable to ask why there is no such
evidence placing the Emberumaanaar sannidhi in that
time period, or the Pedda Jeeyar Matha in that time,
if that is what is held to be true.
-----end quote
It definitely is a reasonable question, and I do not
think anyone will object to that question. I just am
not sure that there can be an answer that can provide
closure either way. So, we just cannot blanket-dismiss
something just because we think it is hearsay.
adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
varadhan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |