(No subject)

[Guest guest]

Mani writes:

 

* By romanticizing the Azhvaars' Vedic heritage, we make

* it easy to ignore the social reality of their time as well

* as ours. Consider the fact that only five centuries after

* Nathamuni's revolutionary acceptance of the Thiruvaaymozhi

* as another Veda, a section of Sri Vaishnavas forcefully

* argued that non-brahmins cannot be acharyas to brahmins!

* Is this the example set by the Azhvaars? Why then were

* these great souls born amongst the entire social spectrum,

* if not to show that social status meant absolutely nothing?

* And that the Vedas themselves were offended by being confined

* to a cloister?

 

This "section of Sri Vaishanavas" could also be viewed as including

Sri Vedanta Desikar himself. In Rahasya Traya Sara, he clearly

argues why even the most devout non-Brahmin bhaktas can nver

"become" Brahmins. He argues that the para-Bhaktas ought to

be respected, but they cannot and should not be considered as Brahmins.

He argues both from teh viewpoint of scriptures as well as

"practicality" (importance of maintaining social order).

>From a "naive" reading of our scriptures, it seems to me that

though the scriptures speak of EQUAL accessibility of God to all members

of society, it NOT imply that the MODES of which God can be attained are

the same for all members. Though our 21rst century ideals may wish

otherwise, many of the most eminent Sri Vaishnava scholars in history

have not believed in an egalitarian society of the sort that people

wish today.

 

To say that these ancient scholars were merely conforming to the social

conditiions of the time is being disingeneous to their philosphy and

attitudes. Ramanuja, Vedanta Desika andother other scholars were

indeed exceptional men who would have gone against the society IF they

felt they believed in it AND if they believed it had Vedic authority.

 

Ramanujachaya intended Kancipurna to be his guru and to eat his

prasadam. This well known traditionally. It is also told that

Kanchipurna did not want this to happen because he felt it was not

proper for a Brahmin to eat the remains of a non-Brahmin (if this

story is not correct, please let me know but this is what I have

heard). Why would Kanchipurna feel this? Was he was merely trying

to keep with social norms and sublating his "true" views?

 

Though it is well known that Ramanuja allowed outcastes to enter Melkote,

it is interesting to note that it was a few days in a year (I think it

was three). Though forward in his times, by todays standards, that can

hardly be considered much of an advancement. It seems to me that

Ramanja was unwilling to change the social norms -- not because of

practicality, but because he did not believe that it had scriptural

authority (for if perceived it to have scriptual authority, I would

think that he would not have had any hesitation in introducing social

reforms).

 

Though I do not know the Tamil Prabhandams well enough to say with

authority, I think it is safe to say that the focus of the Prabhandams is

not the correction of social evils. They have a simple message: worship

God. If the Alvars truly felt that the path to moksa was the betterment

of society, then this would be explicit in every paasuram. But it is not.

Why?

 

We all would like to wish our 21th century ethics and morality to be

part of our ancient scriptures. ALthough I am very sceptical that

our modern notion of equality are really propounded by our Vedic

scriptures, it is possible, by dialetics and clever imagination to

claim that our Vedas contain all that is "good."

 

However, insofar as our acharyas are concerned, it seems to me that

the problem is trickier. I think a large number of them, including the

Alwars, do not hold our world view. Some demonstrate this explicitly

(e.g. Vedanta Desikar in his commentaris) and others implicitly (by

their action, and sometimes, inaction)

 

If one wishes to stick to our present day notions of right and wrong,

it seems very hard to accept these individuals as our acharyas, let

alone incarnates of God.

 

sk