You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Apr 2002

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00106 Apr 2002

 
Apr 2002 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


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/




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list