Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan, The questions you ask are fine. Your tone is a little worrisome though, but I will skip that. The following answers are based on my limited understanding, so please read them with that in mind (I have told this before and I repeat - my opinion is that certain things are better asked to a scholar in person than in a general forum such as this one, if you genuinely seek the answers). 1. Regarding low number of references in the Vedas about Narayana: In order to understand the contents of a work or to see what its purpose is, one has to just look at the beginning and the end. If one has to read the whole work to understand where it is leading, then it is not well written. This is similar to a singer making it clear to the audience in the first few minutes what raaga he/she is singing. Thus, Thiruvaymozhi's purpose can be seen in the first and last pasurams; Mahabharata's intent is seen by looking at its beginning and end. So too it is possible that the Vedas point to Narayana at the beginning and the end - not being savvy with the Vedas, I am not sure if this is true. The other possibility is that as they say "oru pAnai sOrrukku oru sORu patham", one has to study what the Vedas say overall about everything and see if the gist of it is present in the few sections. If so, nothing further is needed. 2. Our acharyas have made it clear that there are only certain upanishads and puranas that are considered valid. The reason being that the others are latter day additions. Now, being an agnostic I know that you will find this reasoning invalid, because everyone can make the same argument. I don't have the details with me on the history of the upanishads and why some are considered latter additions - again, you should seek a scholar on this one. 3. Regarding reading of Vedas by sudras and women. Based on what I have heard scholars say on this topic, there is simply no getting around it. This is the fact. Now, people find this objectionable based on today's value systems. However, in the past when restrictions were different and value systems were different, this was probably not a major issue. Having said that, the irony is this: if indeed the Vedas are allowed to be recited by all, how many of those restricted now are going to go and learn them all? There are many works that have no restrictions on who can learn them - if one has mastered them all, then we can wonder about them and their wish to learn the Vedas; if not I think there is no no need to worry about learning them. Second, these days I see many women learning the Vedas and reciting them in the temples where they are allowed. No one is stopping them from learning. Third, even those who are allowed to learn don't bother to learn it any way. So, we are all arguing over this only in a theoretical sense, because in practice no one is learning the Vedas or following them fully. 3. God is one, but takes many forms. He himself has declared this in many places. Azhvars too state this in many pasurams. Vedas say the same. Are the other religions incorrect in their understanding? Yes, according to our acharyas and azhvars. Nammazhvar gives the reason as "ellIrum vIdu peRRAl ulagillai enRE". If everyone understands their svarUpam and seeks Him, then this world has to be closed down. And He has decided not to do that yet. The objective criterion we use is that we listen to our acharyas. To an agnostic, this may be unacceptable, but I know of no other answer. 4. Why shouldn't the Vedas be in Sanskrit? You do realize that no matter what language it is in, this question could be asked. 5. Nammazhvar, Thiruppanazhvar belong to the lower castes - Nammazhvar is considered the leader of all prapannas and Vedanta Desikar (who is very particular about varanashrama) wrote a vyakhyanam for amalan AdipirAn. Now, if you ask me whether today a sudra can become a Srivaishnava acharya, honestly I would say that it would be difficult. But, there is precedence for it and Srivaishnava philosophy is clear that no one is born a Srivaishnava - so, it can happen. 6. You can call it a coincidence or call it bhagavat sankalpam, but Sri Sadagopan Iyengar Swami from Coimbatore, a prolific writer, just recently posted an article is one of the sister yahoo groups about the very same question. I suggest you refer to it if you can. If not, I will forward a copy of it to you. Just remember though, that the concept of ahimsa as we understand it has changed due to buddhist and jainist influences and may not be the same as the Vedic understanding of that term. 7. I have heard many such references, particularly by communist writers in India, on these things. Over the years I have learned to ignore them, because of this: Sanskrit allows for very many possibilities of interpretations of every word and phrase. This allows for many people to make up their own meanings based on their own agendas. I just look to how our acharyas have seen the overall gist of the Vedas and Upanishads and use that to interpret them in a consistent fashion. adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k@xxxx> wrote: > 1. Vishnu appears to be a minor deity in Rk Vedas. (Totally 6 suktams > I presume) In fact he is none other than Sun. No description of him > as (Shanka-chakra-gadaa-paNi) etc. On the other hand Indra appears a > thousand times with other deities like Agni, Pushan, Ashvins, Dyaava- > Prithvi, Rbhus, Varuna: etc. So on what basis we claim Vedas as our > authorities and Shriman Narayana is mentioned as the supreme in the > Vedas? (Of course, I am aware of NarayaNa-Valli in Taittriya > Aranyakam) > > 2. What about the 108 odd upanishads? There are varying number of > Upanishads that are considered authoritative. But while reading the > commentaries, I've seen "sectarian" upanishads quoted. This brings to > an interesting question. There is a Shaiva upanishad called > Sharabhopanishad, in which Shiva taking a form of Sharabha kills Lord > Nrusimha!!!!!! I find this extremely offensive. Now, if Upanishads > are part of Shruthi, and Shruthi is infallible, what about this > Upanishad? If we ignore this as fake but take "Nrusimha- > tapni", "gopala-tapini" upanishads as authoritative aren't we being > hypocritical? (There aren't major upanishads either). > > 3. Why aren't shudras allowed to read vedas? How about women? Even if > one is pure by heart and deeds? > > 4. Is God one? Then why is he taking different forms in different > places of earth? God according to Semitic religion is totally > different from our construction. So are they deluded? What objective > criterion would we use to see who is correct and who is not? > > 5. Why should the vedas be in Sanskrit? Why not in Tamil or any other > vernacular language? > > 6. Can a Shudra ever aspire to become a religious figure in our > tradition? > > 7. In Gita-Bhashyam, Shri Ramanuja casually mentions that sacrificing > animals during agnishToma is not ahimsa. How so? > > 8. Queer practices in Ashwamedha yagnya? (I am not going to give > details!). Human sacrifice in Purushamedha yagnya? (mentioned in > Shathapatha brahmana)? > > More later. > > Regards, > Kasturi Rangan.
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |