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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00042 Jul 2003

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


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.




[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