hearsay etc.

[Guest guest]

maNi,

 

it looks like you took my mail(s) to be some sort of

a diatribe. Rest assured that it is not. It is very

surprising, for I was supporting your view that there

can be no 100% evidence on these things, and was just

providing some of my views on how hearsay does not

necessarily mean did-not-happen.

 

--quote from maNi's mail

It's not as easy to tar the Vedas or Prabandham with

the same brush, for many reasons. For the Vedas, there

is a relatively uniform text across all Sruti

paramparAs all across the country, and what

differences exist are honestly recognized as different

 

SAkhas or acceptable pAtha-bhedas.

----end quote from maNi's mail

 

Precisely that is the point I wish to make. Our oral

tradition indeed has resulted in a relatively stable

transmission of thoughts/scriptures through

generations. This should give us some confidence that

not all of the oral histories transmitted through

generations are false. {Conversely, we have to accept

that not all of our oral histories are factual

either}.

 

Now, one may make a case that the vedas were passed

down without change because there were no ulterior

motives then, and in our case some people might have

embellished the truth (or deleted the truth) and hence

 

it is not reliable. But here, who is to decide which

of our oral history is accurate, and which is not? And

 

unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of

throwing out everthing that is not "incontrovertible

evidence like a stone carving" as most of the history

we have of us has been passed through oral tradition.

 

If I take the above stance and throw out all oral

history, I might conclude that ramanuja had 10

followers, as I may find only 10 names in all of

the stone carvings available...Sure, history tells

me that ramanuja was in melkOte and hence I can

verify that, but it does not tell me that there

were thousands of followers there! So why are

they claiming that ramanuja had more than 10

followers?

 

Actually, I can also question the accuracy of the

written scriptures/stone carvings - After all,

there was the person who dictated the material and

the transcriber who transcribed the material on

the palm leaf in many cases. How does one know that

the transcriber wrote *exactly* what was dictated?

And, while making copies what is the guarantee that

the second transcriber did not insert/delete

anything? How does one provide "proof" that

kUrattAzhvAn did not modify rAmAnujA's words in

srIbhAshyam and wrote what he wanted? And how do I

*prove* that someone did not pay off the sculptor of

some "kalvettu" to write something false?

 

So, we really cannot find *incontrovertible evidence*

in these things. We just have to determine

the plausibility of some oral tradition based on

what we have from other sources. And then decide

whether to believe in it or not. Or better, in

cases where there is no circumstantial/oral/

written/commonsense evidence that we are prepared

to accept, we can just be non-judgemental about it

knowing that there can be no 100% correct answer

either way. Just as those who believe that a

particular oral tradition is accurate cannot prove

the accuracy, one cannot prove that it is inaccurate

either.

 

 

---quote from maNi's mail

I don't think it's appropriate to conflate this

discussion with the Vadagalai/Thengalai temple

disputes; that's pretty inflammatory and unnecessary.

---- end quote----

 

It is unfortunate that you took it that way. I was

just using it as an example of a hearsay that is

highly improbable, and obviously was not trying to

conflate two totally different topics. I do not see

anything inflammatory in what I wrote. I am surprised

 

that you perceived something inflammatory about it.

 

--quote from maNi's mail

I don't think there's anything diabolical in the

origins of the story that Anandalvan was the impetus

behind the Emberumaanaar sannidhi, or that

Emberumaanaar himself started the Pedda Jeeyar

Matha. They very well may be true. But

they very well may not be true as well, and it appears

 

that there is no solid evidence indicating that it is

fact.

----- end quote

 

I am not sure there is anything in the above para,

that I had disagreed with in my previous mail, other

than giving a higher weightage to whatever "evidence"

is available than you do. Your use of the

word "story" does provide a clue that you might have

judged this issue already.

 

----quote from maNi's mail

Normally, there are many inscriptions which indicate

endowments by or for a Matha, usually named, to help

in the temple services, to help with making garlands,

providing prasaadam for bhAgavatas, providing for

pArAyana and adhyApana, etc.

-----end quote

 

Actually, it is not normal to have "many"

inscriptions. Not many temples have inscriptions, and

even among those that have inscriptions, not many have

 

inscriptions that cover all aspects of the temple. The

 

absence of an inscription does not preclude anything

from having happened.

 

-----quote from maNi's mail

I think it is reasonable to ask why there is no such

evidence placing the Emberumaanaar sannidhi in that

time period, or the Pedda Jeeyar Matha in that time,

if that is what is held to be true.

-----end quote

 

It definitely is a reasonable question, and I do not

think anyone will object to that question. I just am

not sure that there can be an answer that can provide

closure either way. So, we just cannot blanket-dismiss

something just because we think it is hearsay.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

varadhan

 

 

 

Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more

http://games./