You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Oct 2003

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00145 Oct 2003

 
Oct 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear Shri Srinivasachary,
Kindly forgive me if I have offended you in my reply. I understand 
that your reply was for both me and Shri Sriram and I'll try to 
clarify my position. 

1. The context:
I recently pointed out the on-going 'assualt' on our religion (in 
broader sense) which isn't good news for us, Shri Vaishnavas in 
particular. You yourself pointed out we are a numerically 
insignificant population when contrasted with other ethno-demographic 
groups. Thanks to marxist historians, eurocentrist scholars and neo-
vedantins, people nominally adhering to our tradition end up self-
hating one (you might be thinking I am one too :-) ). You are very 
correct in pointing out the 'patronizing attitude' of neo-vedantins 
towards Vishistadvaita philosophy.
Are our younger generation taught about our philosophy, ritual, 
tradition? Not really right? This in itself is only part of the 
problem. A complementary issue is that, what they are exposed to? (I 
am not implying whatever they are exposed to are all wrong). A mixed 
baggage - Vedanta as interpreted by Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, 
for example (if at all they are interested in 'spiritual aspects' of 
our culture. May be I am giving too much credit and they are only 
interested in who is the next big thang - Dhanush or Madhavan, 
jyothika or sneha :-) - maybe for sophisticated ones, replace with 
hollywood thespians). Probably our spiritually inclined spawns know 
more about 'yoga', 'kundalini', 'tantra', 'meditation', 'Max Mueller' 
than Lokacharya or Desika.
I am trying to follow a methodology in this situation, which brings 
us to the next section.

2. Methodology:
I feel there comes a point in time, when old methodologies need to be 
reconsidered. You pointed out that probably I had an aversion to 
itihAsas and purANAs. I stand accused (partially). To give an 
analogy, bible scholars after research have concluded that the new 
testament (NT) wasn't written all at once. The earliest part of 
currently known gospel (of Mark) was written somewhere around AD 70 
and other gospels were written even later. This is all nonsense for a 
believing christian. We as outsiders can objectively look at the 
arguments given by the scholars and see whether they are logically 
compelling, right? 
How can a purANa be an authority, if it talks about Queen Victoria, 
Muhammad, Jesus, rehashed story of Adam & Eve, rehashed story of 
Noah's ark etc. (Bhavishyat purANa)? The most logical explanation is 
that this is a text that was continuously changing down till 19th 
century, right? So, it turns out that not one person was the author 
of the purANa right? Careful analysis of all the purANas reveal that 
they have been written and re-written a lot of times and 
contain 'old' as well as 'new' materials - (sections of vAyu purANa 
goes back to the time of vedas). Of course these are all nonsense to 
a 'believer'.
What is better for us to do now? To anticipate these objections and 
try to answer them or take a passive stance that our 'pUrvAchAryas 
took them as pramANa'? There was a time when you can get away 
with 'it is true because it is said so in Apastambha dharma sUtra or 
mahabharata or Vishnu purANa'. I am simply pointing out that this is 
not the case anymore and if we want to guard our tradition from 
attacks (intentional or unintentional), we have to use an updated 
methodology now (our acharyas can't be blamed for not foreseeing what 
type of objections would emerge in 20th century).
Something being a late composition is not necessarily an objection 
for using it as a pramANa. But we have to be careful and keep in mind 
that Veda Vyasa need not be the author of the texts we are having now 
as purANas.

3. The position of Vedas (and ancillary literature of Vedas):
I wouldn't have touched this if we hadn't claimed we accept the 
entire Shruthi as authority. You mentioned that I went 'to the extent 
of proposing Vishnu was insignificant according to Vedic Seers'. 
(a) I don't claim that NarayaNa is impersonal.
(b) Legitimacy of other vedic 'deities' claim to be brahman:
If we accept the 'entire shruthi' as pramANa, rudra is mentioned 
as 'devAnAm parama:' supreme God in Taittriya Aranyaka and also 
termed as pashupathi. Brihaspathi is called brahman!!!!! in numerous 
places in the very first khanda of taittriya samhita. This is no 
different from another line in nArAyaNopanishad which says 'nArAyaNa 
param brahma'. Do you think we have to turn a blind eye to all these 
with the escape sequence 'all vedanta acharyas didn't doubt 
NarayaNa's paratvam?'. 
(c) Insignificance of 'Vishnu':
Again this comes from our stance that 'Vedas are the supreme 
authority' or even 'if two dharma sutras differ on an issue, we have 
to take them as alternatives' and 'if the dharma sutra contradicts 
shruthi, shruthi vakya overrides the dharma sutra'. We see such an 
importance given to Vedas. Shouldn't we re-think the position of 
Vedas, especially if Vishnu really is treated as 'just another deity' 
in vedas? How many passages do we see in yajur veda - "11 butter 
oblations to aditi, 9 oblations to soma, 12 oblations to vishnu, 15 
butter oblations to Indra' - casual enumeration of Gods and Vishnu 
among them? 
Krishna & Balarama were called sons of Devaki in Chandogya BrahmaNam 
(or in the section of the brAhmaNam popularly called as chandogya 
upanishad). They were also mentioned as pupils of Rishi Sandipini. 
Interestingly we find no superlative adjectives to Krishna or him 
being avatara of Vishnu. This is simply one of the numerous 
references where rishis and their shishyas were mentioned - like 
upakoshala disciple of Jaabala satyakama or Dadhyanc teaching madhu 
vidya to (Ashvins and ...forgot the name of other students).
While this reference is useful to point out the historical nature of 
Krishna (somebody called Krishna, son of devaki had to exist), it is 
very likely that chandogya brAhmaNam was composed before Krishna 
became identified as avatara of Vishnu.


Regards,
Kasturi Rangan .K

P.S.
Sorry for the rambling





--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, srinivasa chary <srinivasadasa@xxxx> 
wrote:
> Dear Sri Sri Ram,
> I am sorry that somewhere down the line I ended up
> being a little too offensive. Kindly accept my
> apologies. I too share most of the concerns expressed
> by you in the sense that we should focus on our
> primary interest as a Srivaishnavite, that is
> "Bhagavadanubhavam". Still, I beg to differ from you
> and Sri Kasturi Rangan (I do not imply here that you
> two have any common opinion on any issue discussed
> here) both in terminology of your concern and your
> mechanism of reaching conclusions based on what looked
> to me like an independent study of our






[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