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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00142 Oct 2003

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


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
scriptures.While acknowledging that my knowledge of
scriptures is limited compared to what you seem to
have (based on your postings), I continue to raise
points such as following, within my understanding of
our Sampradayik position. Kindly bear with me:

1. I was under the impression that the purpose of
whole discussion was to gain some understanding of how
our Purvacharyas established the "Narayana paratvam"
based on scriptures (both Purva and Uttara Mimamsa).
If that is true the discussion went too far away from
this issue, rather in opposite direction. Now you have
also ended up implying 1. Narayana is impersonal 2.
Narayana is not Vishnu alone (or probably something
like Vishnu alone can not claim Narayanahood, every
other diety in Vedic pantheon has right to this claim
- Sri Kasturi Rangan goes even farther than you to
establish how insignificant was Vishnu in the eyes of
Vedic seers) 3. Somehow something is wrong in efforts
to experience "Bhagavadanubhavam" other than
yogic/tantric meditation on impersonal Narayana.I dare
to say that in all these points you drastically differ
from Sampradayik position
of our Purvacharyas.Now, I would like to know whether
the whole effort is to say that our sampradayam is
fundamentally flawed, then this needs a long and
enlightened debate with learned people in Siddhanta. I
guess this sceen is not very new to our Sampradayam as
we had many poorvapakshis over the ages who argued on
these lines. If the idea is to say that some kind of
reform is needed in our Sampradayam, then stop arguing
with terminology borrowed from others. Do you realise
that what you are using is essentially Smarta/Adviatic
language (Your concept of abstract Narayana implies
some form of attributeless Narayana, Your suggestion 
about Yogic meditation is more on lines of sadhana
prescribed by advaitins, They can afford to that
anyway, because they are going to dump their Narayana
on the way and become "Brahman" on their own. Now you
dont deduce that my monotheistic chauvinism is making
me disrespect other points of view. The reality is far
from it. Adviatis, particularly Neovedantins,
generally tend to treat our position with patronising
derision as somthing coming out of lesser
intelligence.I do not have any qualms about Advitins
because they follow what their Acharyas teach). All
this implies some kind of inferiority complex about
our tradition, in my opinion, mainly emerging out of
lack of faith or exposure, which is not called for in
the votaries of a long lasting tradition. 

2. Your persistence of quoting from Rigveda and
insistence on treating it as some kind of superior
evidence baffles me no end. I feel that you can put
whole argument in the context of "Pramana vyavasta" of
our Sampradayam.You can atleat go with "Prasthana
Trayam" as they are accepted as worth commenting by
all Acharyas of Vedantic tradition. Anyway, you seem
to have some aversion to Puranas and Itihasas. The
only idea of accepting this as pramana, as I
understand, is that these are the works of Veda Vyasa
and other parama Rishis, whose understanding of Shruti
is unquestioned. Then and then alone, this discussion
becomes worth while for laymen like me. Other wise it
ends up sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of young
adherents of Sampradayam. I do not say that we should
not rationally study our own tradition. As a matter of
fact it is fundamental to inclucating faith. But, true
understanding demands razor thin intellect, time and
sincere effort. And also constant alertness against
falling in to wrong conclusions. Alternatively, it is
my belief that one can also stand on the shoulders of
the Gaints (Our Purvacharyas) and gain the glimpses
of Bhagadanubhavam.

3. I also do not believe that there is any need to be
intolerent to other systems, as they are any way
beautifully reconciled with our own belief in works of
our Purvacharyas. At the same time kindly ponder over
one point. How may followers do we have in our
Sampradayam. I am not talking in terms of "True"
followers etc. In absolute numbers. Not really great.
We have a beautiful legacy. We can not hand it down
the generations unless we muster enough faith in it.
If you do not, kindly make effort ( This is not meant
for Sriman Sri Ram; general rhetoric) and see if this
Sampradayam offers you anything worth following, under
the guidence of a learned Acharya. Till then kindly
reserve your damning judgements. If you are convinced
doo something such that the Sampradayam lives on. This
is also some sort of "Rishi runam".
4. I intend this as my last mail in this thread of
discussion.Forgive me for unnecessary lecturing.With
due apologies to Sriman Sri Ram and Srima Kasturi
Rangan.
Adiyen
Srinivasadasa

--- purohit@xxxx wrote:
> Adiyen
> 
> Thanks Mohan for your helpfull analysis which is
> enitrely correct. But even
> among the "Vaidikas" there have been problems of
> monotheisitc chauvanism - I
> refer to Ramanuja's encounter with Krimikantha
> Chola. So generally speaking
> Sanatana Dharma does have inbuilt checks and
> balances - but I fear the
> tipping of the scale in some of the postings that I
> read.
> 
> I lament the fact that Srivaishnavas in general are
> given to too much
> chattering about doctrines, dogmas, definitions of
> difference and
> positioning via-a-vis others, seeming to define
> themselves as separate and
> unique. What I would love to see is more meditation
> upon the refulgent form
> of Narayana. Meditation in the real sense of the
> Yogic/Tantic practices.
> Nammalvar meditated for 16 years before he spoke
> anything, and we speak too
> readily without even a reference to
> meditation/realisation. Its like
> discussing the taste of mangoes but never actually
> eating one.
> 
> Instead of meetings where bhaktas gather to chatter,
> condemn, and engage in
> self-praise while filling themselves on pongal and
> puli-odharai, I would
> like to see then sitting in silent meditation.
> 
> Adiyen
> 
> Sri Ram
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________
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