SriVaishnava rigidity

[Guest guest]

Mr. Srinivasan writes:

> That apart, in the earlier days (not now), perhaps Sri Vaishnavism was

> the least rigid and compassionate of the Hindu philosophies

> regarding other religions.

 

As one who regards himself to be a SriVaishnava, I am personally disturbed

by this, and would of course make an effort to challenge this view. But,

from from the perspective of the amateur student of culture, it can be

observed that every monotheistic devotional tradition, Christianity, Saivism

(not Advaita,) Islam, etc. has to have a certain amount of rigidity in

order to propogate its views. If a religion has to maintain the status of

one god being true above all others, it has to show that this god is better

than all the other gods. And, since that one god generally serves as a

ruler or father figure, one would naturally want be inclined to defend, or

in some traditions, fight for that god and his chosen community.

 

This, of course, would not be the case of the Advaitic or Buddhist

philosophies, for the concept of Divinity in both these traditions is

chiefly impersonal, and consequently, is discovered through individual self

realization, irrespective of religious tradition.

 

However, one cannot help but notice that the philosophical side of

SriVaishnavism is quite revolutionary in its humane insights and reformist

ideals. The idea that the Lord's Compassion and Magnanimity are such that He

accepts souls irrespective of their caste or station in life; that "simple"

acceptance is all that is required to reach Him; and that devotional

outpourings in the vernacular are just as valid and as sacred as religious

language and rituals are some examples of this phenomenal level of

humanitarianism that, in my view, would overshadow the perceived rigidity.

 

 

Daasanu Daasan,

 

Mohan