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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00075 Oct 2003

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


Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan,
I have a small suggestion here based on my little
analysis. Kindly see if it makes any sense.
If you really only go by number of hymns
dedicated to praise of Indra in say Rigveda, as we
understand it today, Indra should be ultimate god of
Vedas. Obviously there should have been a reasonably
strong theistic tradition existing today which has
Indra as the ultimate diety. There doesn't seem to be
one. There does not seem to be evidence of one such
tradition existing at least since composition of
Mahabharata. Same is the case with many other dieties
of Vedic pantheon. This strikes me odd. Probably it
may mean that it was not the way our ancestors
understood Vedas.
Another important point one should keep in
mind, in my opinion, is that there has always been an 
unbroken chain of interpretative tradition existing in
learning and propagation of Veda and its
supplimentary texts.Exposition of meaning of Vedic
texts has always been in the context of this
interpretative tradition. As I see it the
interpretative tradition of Vissitadvaita/
Srivaishnava as expounded by SriRamanuja goes back to
Bodhayana who was a direct disciple of Sri Vedavyasa.
My humble opinion is that if we have to really
find how our Purvacharyas upheld Narayana paratvam one
should probably explore the roots of our tradition
(assuming one needs to do this at all). I feel that
any other way of trying to decipher Vedic texts only
from the meaning of Sanskrit words as we know today
may not help much. By the way, I do not have any
special grudge against western indologists (hidden
agenda does not trouble me much), except that they
have definitely not given due importence to
interpretative tradition of Veda and Vedanta in their
quest to understand Vedic texts. This does not look
really scholarly to me.
By the way, I feel that our Purvacharyas
conviction of Narayana paratva is based more on
Upanishad texts than the Samhitas.May be one can see
whole thing only in the light of Vedanta as we any way
believe that importence of karam mimansa is more in
karma.
I know I have not really made any body wiser 
by this note. Just to share some stray thoughts.

Adiyen
Srinivasadasa 
--- amshuman_k <amshuman_k@xxxx> wrote:
> Dear Shri Nappinnai,
> 
> "Did the question arise due to the doubt in your
> mind or someone 
> else's mind? "
> 
> Very much in my mind. On a side note, I discovered
> similar issues 
> discussed by Shri Mohan Sagar in the old archives of
> Bhakti list.
> 
> Back to the central question:
> "Back to square one: Do you have a problem in
> believing the Supremacy 
> of SrimanNarayana "
> My point as always :-) - No I don't, from my heart.
> However, I have a 
> problem when we (as in Shri Vaishnavas) claim that
> this is attested 
> in Vedas.
> 
> Regards,
> Kasturi Rangan .K
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.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