outmode forms

[Guest guest]

Mani writes:

 

*** What then are the outmoded forms? I have not asked

*** my anonymous friend, but I am sure we can come up

*** with some expressions of life that were present

*** during our acharya's time that reflected their cultural

*** viewpoint without having lasting value. This is all

*** that was meant.

 

Who is to decided what is outmode and what is not? Who is to

say what is cultural and what is spiritual? Perhaps

historians? Perhaps anthropologists? Is this how we are to understand

our religion? If so, this has never been the tradition of our

religion. Perhaps in actuality, scholars interpreted the religion

in the context of their times; but, nowhere have they ever stated that

our religion is anything but eternal. Not merely in the philsocophy,

but also in the rituals. The notion that something iin the

Vedas is "outmoded" never arises anywhere in the imporatnt commentaries.

 

One can reinterpret the scriptures anyway one wants to conform with

the reality of ones life and surrounding. That is a matter of ones

conscience and personal choice. This can never be questioned. However,

to claim that this is the "way of our ancient seers" is in serious

error. What you describe is the way of an Indologist -- not that

of Ramanuja and Vedanta Desika.

 

 

*** The essence is this -- simply quoting pages and pages

*** of some Upanishad, Rahasya Traya Saaram, or other work

*** does one no good, unless one actually engages in the

*** process of sAdhana, using these works as a basis for

*** practical application in modern times.

 

The first part I agree. The second is inconsisted with

the ways of our scholars. Ramanuja never used the scriptures of his

era as "a basis for practical application in (then) modern times."

 

What you say is fine, but just keep in mind that this is not the ways

of our ancient scholars. What you propose is a practical way for one

to resolve the perceived "inconsistencies" with modern outlook. But

was Ramanuja practical? Was Vedanta Desikar practical? I see nothing

in their lives to suggest that.

 

I could argue that the solution, I could argue, is not to go read

history books, but to go find a competent Guru and learn at his feet.

That will do a lot more in clarifying one's doubt than years of

solitude and meditation (remember it took Vishmamitra thousands of

years to get the vidya -- how much easier would it have been had he

initially disposed of his arrogance and fell at the feet of Vasistha).

 

 

I feel one should not be too judgemental on "reactionaries." There is

nothing to say a liberatarian viewpoint that suggest it to be

any closesr to "Truth." Arrogance and ignorance are found in both

camps. It comes down ultimately to personal choice.

 

sk

[Guest guest]

I ask a simple question:

 

Is crossing the ocean still considered equivalent

to losing all sense of Suddham, as our ancient

acharyas thought? Since our present acharyas

accept us freely even though we cross the ocean,

and some of the swamis even come across the

ocean themselves these days when a Desika

or Ramanuja would never have done so, can we

not say that this form of acharam is outmoded?

 

Mani