The "real" Ramanuja (excerpts from Sri Bhasya)

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:05:55 -0800 Mani said:

>

>Regarding hell: I have rethought my position and I agree

>that the hell as conceived of by the PurANas and Brahma-sutras

>makes logical sense and is fully acceptable. There is no

>logical reason to deny it, though I still maintain that

>a bhakta would be happy in hell as well, since she sees

>God everywhere.

>

 

 

 

While reading this post I am reminded of

ThoNaradippodi aazhvaar's paasuram which

clearly states that our Lord's grace does

pervade hell and provide respite.

 

 

namanum muRkalanum pEsa

narakil ninRaargaL kEtka,

narakamE suvarkka maakum

naamangaL udaiya nambi,

avanathoor arangamennaathu

ayarththu veezhnthaLiya maanthar,

kavalaiyuL padukin Raar en

RathanukkE kavalkinREnE!

 

 

(Even the torments of hell miraculously turn into

pleasurable heaven for those who are in earshot of

the conversation between Yama and Mudkalan that

includes our Lord's names. I worry for those who

can't find it in themselves to praise Sri Rangam

the abode of this great Lord.)

 

 

But I think our Lord would never let anyone who

has attained the state of seeing Him even in hell

to langush in it even for a fraction of a second.

 

 

 

-- pd

 

 

p.s. There is more to this legend concerning Yama

and Mudgalan. I will post the details if I can

dig them up. If anyone else is familiar please post.

[Guest guest]

Sumanth Kaushik presented excerpts from Ramanuja's

Sri Bhashya showing his opinions on caste, namely,

the denial of the right to bhakti-yoga for Sudras.

 

What exactly is the point? Certainly, Ramanuja

presented a staunchly orthodox face to the rest of

the world, but privately nurtured a very open and catholic

Sri Vaishnava community. Recall that his own brahmin

students protested when he leaned on Urangavilli

Daasar's shoulder after bathing and sandhyA.

Ramanuja demonstrated how caste status had nothing

to do with bhakti and one's relationship in the

community of Vaishnavas. Also recall that he wished

to partake of the leftovers of Thirukkacchi NambigaL.

All of these actions were and are great apachArams in

orthodox brahminical eyes.

 

[A further example -- Periya Nambi, Ramanuja's acharya,

performed the brahma-medha funeral rites for Maaran Eri

Nambi, even thought the latter was an ``untouchable''!

The brahma-medha is traditionally reserved only for

brahmins.]

 

While Ramanuja definitely did uphold the traditional

restrictions concerning access to the Veda in his

Sri Bhashya, it is worth noting that S.S. Raghavachar,

the noted Ramanuja scholar of modern times, considered

Ramanuja's comments on Bhagavad-Gita 9.29 to be an

absolute *repudiation* of the apaSudrAdhikaraNa, the same

section in which the previous comments occur.

 

The Gita was written very late in Ramanuja's life,

and shows the acharya in his most devotional and mature

mood, writing primarily to his Sri Vaishnava community.

While he may have held a public posture about

the role of Sudras and their right to brahma-vidya, it

is my confirmed belief based on his life story and his

commentary on the Gita that he was far more accepting

of people of all castes than is apparent from the Sri Bhashya.

 

Consider this in the same vein as his absolute silence

on SaraNAgati in the Sri Bhashya, even though we all agree

that he was a firm believer in it.

 

Interestingly, SaraNAgati is also a Vedic brahma-vidya.

If we wanted to put Ramanuja in the straightjacket of

absolute consistency, Sudras would have no right to

SaraNAgati as well.

 

Regarding hell: I have rethought my position and I agree

that the hell as conceived of by the PurANas and Brahma-sutras

makes logical sense and is fully acceptable. There is no

logical reason to deny it, though I still maintain that

a bhakta would be happy in hell as well, since she sees

God everywhere.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

>

>This Sutra refutes this view and denies to Sudras by caste, the right

>to Brahmavidya. Though meditation is only a mental activity yet the

>intellectual knowledge required as a means to the Upasana it not

>possible with the study of the Vedas, as in the casee of ritualistoc

>action. As Sudras are barred from Vedic studies they cannot therefore

>have the necessary qualifications for such Upasanas.

>

 

 

Enquiring the caste of a Sri Vaishnava is supposed to be

a grave apachara. Perhaps theolgical justification for

demphasising caste in Sri Vaishnava lives can be built

around this concept. Wouldn't our poorvaachaaryaas look

upon an acharya who does this, with the same kindness that

ThirukkOshtiyoor Nambi looked upon Sri Ramanuja after he

committed the apachara of disobeying the direct instructions

of his acharya.

 

 

 

-- dhaasan parthasarati dileepan

[Guest guest]

(Even the torments of hell miraculously turn into

pleasurable heaven for those who are in earshot of

the conversation between Yama and Mudkalan that

includes our Lord's names. I worry for those who

can't find it in themselves to praise Sri Rangam

the abode of this great Lord.)

 

 

But I think our Lord would never let anyone who

has attained the state of seeing Him even in hell

to langush in it even for a fraction of a second.

 

 

 

-- pd

 

 

Yudhishthira visited hell not because he was punished for wrong

doing, but to give relief to the other residents of hell who had

prayed for help. Sriman Narayana goes to any loka in the form of

His pure devotees in order to help baddha jivatmas get out of

Samsara. Similarly His pure devotees take birth on earth as Acharyas

to help us get Moksha.

 

Jaganath.