You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Apr 2004

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00055 Apr 2004

 
Apr 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear bhAgavatas:

<Disclaimer: I request people who are uninterested in skt. vyAkaraNa 
to skip to "main thread" below.>

Dear vishNu & others:
I offered you an apology in my latest post (#3631). In a previous 
post, I also mentioned that you may have the final word. I'll try to 
keep up that and not write more on skt. syntaxes. I'll try to clarify 
few things.

1. I am not a sanskrit scholar; nor do I claim to be one. 
2. I have not followed strict transliteration of sanskrit words in 
roman scripts - sometimes I've written vishnu, sometimes vishNu, 
sometimes deva, sometimes dEva, veda/vEda etc. etc. Yes, I made a 
mistake in writing trishTubh as trishtub.
3. I don't dogmatically assert that I am right. When you gave a 
contrary spelling "trishtup", with a veiled insult "someone who 
doesn't know basic sanskrit aksharAs is writing on vEdas etc.", I 
took it a little personal - I admit that.

However - I do some basic homework. I do not immediately fire back. I 
checked my original text. It does say "trishTubh". Ok, maybe my text 
is wrong... Where else I've seen this word?... Aitareya Aranyakam, 
chandogya brahmanam, gautama dharma sutra.... I have originals and 
translations by European sanskritists... I refer all of them and they 
consistently say "trishTubh" and my confidence grows.

Maybe the Europeans are stupid. So, who can I ask? My own sanskrit 
master is very old and not computer savvy. Who else can I ask? I know 
a vedic and sanskrit scholar, so let me ask him.... I mail him. Wait, 
wait... I know a sanskrit professor working in Hindu University... 
I'll ask him too. Meanwhile, let me check other original sources...

When all of them unanimously say the same thing, I am pretty 
convinced about the correct usage. (re-read #1). Basically, I've 
provided references like (1) chanda sUtra (2) sarvAnukramaNika (3) 
Monier-Williams (4) Translations by Mueller, Buhler, Eggeling etc. 
(5) Explanations from 2 sanskrit scholars. I believe, that is how one 
carries out a discussion - provide references, that one can 
independently go and check (especially when someone had already 
adimitted his inadequate or lapsed training in the field). You 
haven't yet given a single instance, (except your dogmatic assertion) 
which I can go, study and verify independently. 

Moreover, I am not a favorite student or a personal friend of them 
and they are trying to do me a favor by saying I am correct. We've 
had debates and discussions previously and they have corrected me in 
numerous cases. Had they shown that I am wrong, with references from 
primary sources, I would have tendered an unconditional apology. Not 
simply an apology for offending a co-vaishNava.

I can even give the e-mail address of the professor and you may carry 
out the discussion with him, if you wish. (Please try to be polite. 
He is a humble soul and his knowledge is inversely proportional to 
his ego). As for me, this topic is closed, unless you cite primary 
references that can be cross-verified.

The main thread
---------------
<Disclaimer: I threw out all the conventions of sanskrit 
transliteration. All typos, corrections of transliteration etc. will 
be ignored.>
The main topic was about legends form shatapatha brahmana, affiliated 
with shukla yajurveda. We have had similar discussions before, that 
never seemed to end. 

Here is the problem definition:
"Is it possible to demonstrate that vishNu and only vishNu is supreme 
from vEdic texts alone and not taking a recourse to purANas?"

Here are some thoughts on constraints:
Which ones should we accept as valid vEdic texts? Can we accept 
gopala tapini upanishad, mahopanishad, nrsimha tapiniya etc. but 
reject nilarudra upanishad, atharvashiras and shvetashvatara 
upanishads? If so, how so? (Not answers like - because the latter 
glorify shiva and the former glorify vishNu and we already know that 
vishNu is supreme - that would be circular).

I will try to provide my humble suggestions on why the following 
arguments are incorrect (and more, as we go along).

(1) whenever you read a mantra addressed to agni, read it as a one 
addressed to vishnu, as vishNu is antaryami of everybody... 
(antaryami logic)
(2) argument against frequency of occurance: you spend 12 years in 
high school but only 4 years in college. Similarly, you study a lot 
of mantras addressed to various devatas but only a few mantras on 
vishNu. College education is more complex and "higher" than high 
school education. Similarly, mantras addressed to "vishNu" 
are "higher" than other dEvatas.
(maybe more as we go along)

Regards,
Kasturi Rangan






[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