A different perspective

[Guest guest]

Respected bhAgavathas,

 

Somewhere among the plethora of argumentative e-mails that are related to

this topic, there is one by Sri Mani calling for a more objective and less

hagiology-based discusion on the subject of Manvalamamuni and Vedanta

Desika. I would concur with Mani, with the exception that to do so in its

purist sense would not be very effective, since much of what SriVaishnavam is

based upon, from the AzhwArs to the two illustrious poorvAchAryas, is

interweaved with hagiology. So, to move away from hagiology completely would

leave large gaping holes in our our understanding of the lives of these great

souls and the deep level of respect and fame to our community.

 

Be that as it may however, we must at least try maintain some effort to show

some objectivity on this issue if we are ever to bring what has now

degenerated into needless bickering to an end. Those like myself who is more

connected to the West than to India can do so with some ease, because we have

been blessed to be able to study SriVaishnavism as an

anthropological/comparitive religion study as well as from the perspective of

it being our chosen faith.

 

Based on this former perspective, a totally different picture of

SriVaishnavam is offered as existing prior to, during, and even after the

time of the two famors AchAryas. What is suggested by Western scholars is an

image of Ramanuja Darshanam in its truest sense, a vibrant and dynamic

culture that had a major impact on all levels of life in pre-British India.

Its influence could be seen not only in temple worship and philosophical

debate, but also in the sculpting, painting, music, dance, theatre, and even

in politics. Examples of this are now only the subject of old Telugu and

Tamizh film: the building of the beautiful temples at Belur and Hampi, the

ashtadig gajas of the majestic court of Krishna Deva Raya, the poetry of

Kamban, the dance style Kuchipudi, all this and much more sprung out of or

drew heavily upon the scholarly devotionalism of the SriVaishnava scholars of

yore.

 

It would naturally follow that a culture having such a strong sphere of

influence would be home to a vast tapestry of philosophical and religious

ideas in order to allow for a varied population of followers. It could be

suggested that the very vibrancy of SriVaishnavam itself probably emerged in

the expression of the paradoxes and contradistinctions that came into being

and merged with other prevailing views to form new ones. Indeed, there is

evidence to suggest that some of the more noted scholars in our paramparai

were able to interweave various philosophical ideas such that the seeming

tension between varying views brought out the beauty, mystery, and majesty of

the Divine.

 

How is it possible, then, for Vedanta Desika and Manavalamunigal, who are

both paradigmatic examples of SriVaishnava scholars, to have not known these

varying views? How could they represent only one specific set of ideas, and

merely denounced others? To even begin to suggest that they were merely

taking a firm stand on one perceived truth or the other would be verging on

the ridiculous, because it would make them appear almost rudimentary in their

understanding in comparison to what was taking place during their time.

 

While there is no doubt in my mind that our AchAryas are probably still aware

of and expert in this dynamic and inclusionary understanding of our

siddhAntam, it would appear that we, the post-British, job-oriented and

materialistically driven laiety have - and Sri Mani must pardon me for using

this term - "hijacked" our two beloved AchAryas, lowering them to the level

of icons for our dry and rather incomplete arguments about the nature of

SriVaishnavam, all in an effort to show our false sense of moral superiority

over one group or the other.

 

I would strongly suggest that we make an effort to spend more time either

meeting with our teachers or at least listening to the discourses of all our

AchAryas and scholars with humility, with the effort to look beyond the "U"

or "Y" that adorns them, so that we can have a deeper and more refined

understanding of our faith and the hagilogies and philosophies that are

associated with it. In this way, we can utilize Bhakti list for far more

healthy discussion, rather than bogging ourselves down in trite debates as to

which kalai is superior, or which hagiology is better. And, in this way,

perhaps we can at least take one step towards restoring the wonder that was

once Sri Ramanuja Darshanam.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Mohan