Musing on Vedic Culture vs. SriVaishnavism - part II

[Guest guest]

"A city without a temple is no city at all. So say the Tamil poets. And, as

if to prove it the Tamils have built a multitude of magnificent structures

to their gods..."

 

So begins a very interesting presentation by Michael Wood of the BBC on the

subject of Tamil culture as part of his discussion on the religion of India

in the television series, Legacy.

 

Indeed, a short drive through any major city or small town in Tamil Nadu

would show the strong influence of temples in our society. And, with the

advent of temples, a distinct culture emerges; one in which the gods are not

perceived as being mysterious and erratic, as is the case in early Vedic

thought, but are stable deities who can relate to the human condition, and

whose presence is as close as the nearest temple and available to just about

anyone (there are examples that would show otherwise, but I think we should

take this up at another time). These gods do not require sacrifice to be

appeased, but instead, actually hear the prayers of their devotees. Wood

takes the example of Siva of contrasting Vedic and Tamil views of the

Divine. In Vedic Culture, Siva is viewed as an ambiguous, often times

temperamental deity, the "wild yogi" of the Himalayan Mountains. While in

the South, Siva is depicted as the artistic dancer, the god of sensuality,

and the handsome bridegroom of Uma.

 

Needless to say, such deities, what to say of NamPerumal, would invoke a

sense of loving devotion in us. And from such love emerges the devotional

outpourings of the the mystics, the Azhwars and Nayanars (It is interesting

to note here that some students of comparitive religion have evidence to

suggest that very concept of Bhakti itself was created among the temple

based societies of South India). The devotion that they expressed extended

beyond just the deity, it became part of what Dr. Narayanan refers to as

territorial theology, in which the temple, the surrounding town, and at

times even the people are praised. Such a religion, with its more easily

understood emphasis on devotion, and the encouragement of a sense of

community, would naturally become part of mainstream popular culture.

 

But, this raises the question of what role the Vedas would play in all of

this. For the devotionalistic temple based movement has features that

differentiate it slightly from Vedic thought:

 

*caste rigidity plays less of a role

*the use of the vernacular, rather than Sanskrit, allows the philosophy to

be easily understood

*the idea of a personal Divinity who is reachable and compassionate

*a stronger sense of connection to the Deity resulting in a heightened sense

of village community

 

 

The Vedas, in spite of it all, were, and still are, regarded to be Eternal

Truths, so there was no question of throwing them out. But, the popular

devotion was probably so strong an influence on the culture of the people

that they, too (Thank God) could not be removed from the lives of the

people. Thus, a hybrid religion developed, a delicate balance between Vedic

ritualism and philosophy and Tamil devotionalism: Ubhaya Vedanta.

 

--

 

Which leads me to the point of all this musing: I would contend that we as

Brahminical members of the Tamil communities are not of the same culture as

the Brahmins of the Period of the Brahmanas. For we are products of this

hybrid culture.

Consequently, particulary in discussions of caste, we must recognize that

our views of ourselves, and other communities, are slightly different from

what the Sastras suggest. We should follow the examples of our noted

predecessors in Ubhaya Vedanta, tempering Vedic rigidity with the

devotionalism of the Bhagavathas. From this, I think we can get a better

understanding of why this debate of caste even exists, as well as ways to

understand each other's views better.

 

I do hope that this big picture view provided something to this group. For

me, it put things in perspective such that the stress associated with

questioning the values of my own caste was mitigated.

 

Now, much to my own relief, as well as I'm sure, many of yours, I will get

off this Anthropology lecturer's podium, and speak as a fellow devotee, again.

 

An excellent example of Ubhaya Vedanta in practice, a result of my

discussions with Mani, will be shared in my next posting.

 

 

Daasanu Daasan,

 

Mohan