Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Namaste, One thing I have noticed in many posts not in just this group, but many others, is the resorting to Indologists and research scholars, be it on subjects concerning Tantra, Veda, Upasana or any others. I wonder why do we need to refer to these researchers who do their work with a questioning mindset when we have the words of Parokshajnani Acharyas to guide us. Request clarification. Regards, Sudarshan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 , " sudarshanbalasubramanian " <sudarshanbalasubramanian wrote: > > Namaste, > > One thing I have noticed in many posts not in just this group, but > many others, is the resorting to Indologists and research scholars, be > it on subjects concerning Tantra, Veda, Upasana or any others. I > wonder why do we need to refer to these researchers who do their work > with a questioning mindset when we have the words of Parokshajnani > Acharyas to guide us. > I am a liitle surprised to see this question. The question I would ask is why should we not resort to Indologists and research scholars? What is wrong with that? That a person x approaches the shAstra with a questioning mindset does not automatically falsify their findings. Nor such skepticism is discouraged in the shAstra-s. Personally I resort to these works because they open up the mind to hitherto unknown things about our own shAstra-s. The late prof. Alexis Sanderson performed lots of research on shaiva systems and I cant think of any south Indian AchArya whose learning matches his depth and breadth in this field. In addition the inconsistencies and the narrow outlook prevents most south Indian traditional teachers from studying some of the lesser known traditions of ours. If one is open enough they will see that one can benefit a lot from their works. This doesnt mean we should respect the work of every Tom Dick and Harry who professes to be an indologist. As an example: Works of people like Wendy Doniger,Jeffrey Kripal, Paul Courtwright should have their right place in teh trash can. While the works of Indologists like Somadeva Vasudeva, Alexis Sanderson, should be greatly valued because they touch and expound on many poorly known aspects of our tradition. Another note of caution: This does not mean we should blindly take for granted whatever indologists(even the good ones) or researchers say. Personally I take only those from their works that help me in my sAdhana and understanding apart those which help understand current practices in the broader context.** I am not alone in this. I have seen highly accomplished mantra-shAstra teachers resort to good Indological works. Here is another question: Can you name atleast one single traditional AchArya who is well versed with all the branches under this huge umbrella of shaivism? Do they even try to study and understand these various shaiva systems? It is so vast that one can spend lifetimes studying it. Situation in the south is worse. People are busy saying this doesnt confirm to shankara school or that is not inline with shankara school paying little attention to the dying traditions. Or at times they are busy changing existing traditions to confirm to their school of thought. As an example: Late Prof. Alexis Sanderson who did some good research on shaiva schools was trained directly by the kAshmIri shaiva teacher Swami Lakshman Joo for 6 years. So why would not one value his papers on shaivism. Furthermore, they are ones who took the pains to critically edit texts, preserve manuscripts from Nepal and kAshmIr. If not for them we could have lost many valuable manuscripts. Short answer to your question: Traditional teachers(especially in the south) are inadequate when it comes to helping us preserve and understand our traditions. It is not a question of competency. They just lack the interest and passion with which some good western Indologists study our traditions. You need not trust my words. Make an attempt, study their works and see it for yourself. If one belongs to shankara sAmpradAya, fine they can follow it but only make sure it doesnt become like a mania sort of thing. ati sarvatra varjayet! ** This is something I cannot explain very well. Those who really look into these works will understand or get the feel of what I say here but otherwise.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 Mainly because I's bring the tenets of scientific inquiry to esoteric texts and resources. It is almost akin to talking to a class teacher even if the parents are well educated and keep tutoring the kid at home. I's may not be correct, accurate all the times, or even 50% of the times; one do not fall to the feet of I's for spiritual blessings (Eg. someone like Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, though he was not exactly an indologist); I's bring in the same intellectual analytical rigor that has been applied to other similar resources; when the followers have passionate and opinionated outlook and perception of any scriptural resources, I's, supposedly, bring in an objective treatment very much necessary. If spiritual scriptures help to burn away the muck and moss of many lives, why not let I's test their (scriptures') mettle with their shallow (relatively) intellectual analysis? When is that questioning mindset a taboo? After svethakethu? After Gargi? After Maithreyi and Yagnavalkya? By the way, without the indologists, many of the currently known works would be known only by references to them, without being available to you and me. -gopal G --- On Thu, 10/23/08, sudarshanbalasubramanian <sudarshanbalasubramanian wrote: sudarshanbalasubramanian <sudarshanbalasubramanian Indologists and Acharyas Thursday, October 23, 2008, 11:33 PM Namaste, One thing I have noticed in many posts not in just this group, but many others, is the resorting to Indologists and research scholars, be it on subjects concerning Tantra, Veda, Upasana or any others. I wonder why do we need to refer to these researchers who do their work with a questioning mindset when we have the words of Parokshajnani Acharyas to guide us. Request clarification. Regards, Sudarshan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 Namasthe, Although my post here is in reply to the above subject line, it also relates to other messages. I agree the value of Indologists is indeed high and we may have lost out on several treasures without them, but yet, I feel the depth of their scientific mindset has made them and others dangle between logic and confusion. Most of the times, for the sake of disagreement and to satisfy themselves right, these researchers refuse to agree with Acharya Purushas. It makes me wonder how a human mind that struggles to know what is contained within itself, can delve into the mysteries contained within an icon. Indologists seek to study iconography while Acharya Purushas seek to study what is contained within the icon. I remember a quote attributed to Swami Rama Tirtha - God is not a Mr, a Mrs, or a Miss, but simply a mystery. Sudarshan Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Dear satish, First of all, why would acharyas resort to indology? " tasmAt shastra pramANam kArya akArya vyavasthitau " is the siddhanta they believe. They assimilate the essence of Shastras and leave the rest. When Ramana Bhagavan was asked " does a Yogi know everything " , His reply was " Yogi knows everything WORTH KNOWING " . The works of indologists are useful for " westernised Indians " which has nothing to do with upasana. Moreover, it has been written basically keeping in mind the westerners who would like to know about Indian philosophy. Mind you, Arthur Avalon was not an Indologist. BTW, most of the Indologists are " venom-spitting " people against Indian civilization who think Vedas to be " poursheya " . To name them are Max Mueller and Mitzel. This guy Mr. Mitzel met my gurunatha and both had heated arguments finally Mitzel went off by prostrating before my gurunatha. But fortunately, David Frawley was a nice person and has good respect for my gurunatha and Ganapati Muni. As regards the " subhagodaya Stuti " , the author of the hymn is not the Parama Guru of Acharya Sankara. There are 2 Gaudapadas. Though acharyas of Sringeri know certain secrets, they do not reveal to the posterity. Some of the startling facts were revealed to Shri Sacchidananda Nrisimha Bharati Swamigal during His antarmukha avastha. EXACT DATE OF BIRTH OF ACHARYA SANKARA ALONGWITH THE PLACE OF BIRTH AND HIS MOTHER'S PLACE OF BIRTH AND SAMADHI WERE REVEALED TO SWAMIGAL. SWAMIGAL HAD WRITTEN NOTES OF HIS REVELETIONS AND ARE PRESERVED TILL DATE. Could any of your Indologists do this? EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE THROUGH ANUSHTANA BALA. OTHERWISE SHASTRAS WOULD HAVE BEEN DEAD BY THIS TIME. With regards, sriram , " Satish " <satisharigela wrote: > > , " sudarshanbalasubramanian " > <sudarshanbalasubramanian@> wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > > > One thing I have noticed in many posts not in just this group, but > > many others, is the resorting to Indologists and research scholars, > be > > it on subjects concerning Tantra, Veda, Upasana or any others. I > > wonder why do we need to refer to these researchers who do their > work > > with a questioning mindset when we have the words of Parokshajnani > > Acharyas to guide us. > > > > I am a liitle surprised to see this question. > The question I would ask is why should we not resort to Indologists > and research scholars? What is wrong with that? > > That a person x approaches the shAstra with a questioning mindset > does not automatically falsify their findings. Nor such skepticism is > discouraged in the shAstra-s. > > Personally I resort to these works because they open up the mind to > hitherto unknown things about our own shAstra-s. The late prof. > Alexis Sanderson performed lots of research on shaiva systems and I > cant think of any south Indian AchArya whose learning matches his > depth and breadth in this field. > > In addition the inconsistencies and the narrow outlook prevents most > south Indian traditional teachers from studying some of the lesser > known traditions of ours. > > If one is open enough they will see that one can benefit a lot from > their works. This doesnt mean we should respect the work of every Tom > Dick and Harry who professes to be an indologist. > > As an example: Works of people like Wendy Doniger,Jeffrey Kripal, > Paul Courtwright should have their right place in teh trash can. > While the works of Indologists like Somadeva Vasudeva, Alexis > Sanderson, should be greatly valued because they touch and expound on > many poorly known aspects of our tradition. > > Another note of caution: This does not mean we should blindly take > for granted whatever indologists(even the good ones) or researchers > say. Personally I take only those from their works that help me in my > sAdhana and understanding apart those which help understand current > practices in the broader context.** I am not alone in this. I have > seen highly accomplished mantra-shAstra teachers resort to good > Indological works. > > Here is another question: Can you name atleast one single traditional > AchArya who is well versed with all the branches under this huge > umbrella of shaivism? > Do they even try to study and understand these various shaiva systems? > It is so vast that one can spend lifetimes studying it. > > Situation in the south is worse. People are busy saying this doesnt > confirm to shankara school or that is not inline with shankara school > paying little attention to the dying traditions. Or at times they are > busy changing existing traditions to confirm to their school of > thought. > > As an example: Late Prof. Alexis Sanderson who did some good research > on shaiva schools was trained directly by the kAshmIri shaiva teacher > Swami Lakshman Joo for 6 years. So why would not one value his papers > on shaivism. Furthermore, they are ones who took the pains to > critically edit texts, preserve manuscripts from Nepal and kAshmIr. > If not for them we could have lost many valuable manuscripts. > > Short answer to your question: Traditional teachers(especially in the > south) are inadequate when it comes to helping us preserve and > understand our traditions. It is not a question of competency. They > just lack the interest and passion with which some good western > Indologists study our traditions. > > You need not trust my words. Make an attempt, study their works and > see it for yourself. > > If one belongs to shankara sAmpradAya, fine they can follow it but > only make sure it doesnt become like a mania sort of thing. > > ati sarvatra varjayet! > > ** This is something I cannot explain very well. Those who really > look into these works will understand or get the feel of what I say > here but otherwise.. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 [i posted this response to Sudarshan Balasubramanian last Friday but it showed up in teh list only this week for whatever reason. More on the shubhAgama panchaka post later] , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > > Dear satish, > > First of all, why would acharyas resort to indology? This was already touched upon in the post that you replied to. Please go through it. > " tasmAt shastra > pramANam kArya akArya vyavasthitau " is the siddhanta they believe. > They assimilate the essence of Shastras and leave the rest. Typically you will find traditional teachers acquiring mastery mastery over a wide range of subjects. It is only in teh recent past that such a narrow outlook is being encouraged. As an example take the case of bhAskara-rAya: > The works of indologists are useful for " westernised Indians " which > has nothing to do with upasana. This is not correct. You may refer to earlier post on this topic which deals with this. > BTW, most of the Indologists are " venom-spitting " people against > Indian civilization who think Vedas to be " poursheya " . Thinking veda-s to be pauruSheya doesnt automatically make someone venom-spitting. They evolved over time and that will be clear to anyone devoid of blind faith. > As regards the " subhagodaya Stuti " , the author of the hymn is not the > Parama Guru of Acharya Sankara. There are 2 Gaudapadas. :-)) This is what I am talking about. > Some of the startling facts were revealed to Shri > Sacchidananda Nrisimha Bharati Swamigal during His antarmukha > avastha. > > EXACT DATE OF BIRTH OF ACHARYA SANKARA ALONGWITH THE PLACE OF BIRTH > AND HIS MOTHER'S PLACE OF BIRTH AND SAMADHI WERE REVEALED TO > SWAMIGAL. SWAMIGAL HAD WRITTEN NOTES OF HIS REVELETIONS AND ARE > PRESERVED TILL DATE. It is just sad to see that people take these things for granted. > > Could any of your Indologists do this? They are neither your's nor mine. We take only those things from their works that help us understand and preserve our traditions. Refer to the examples in the previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 " It is just sad to see that people take these things for granted. " ^^^It's fine if you do not want to accept these, but try not to hurt the feelings of people that believe in them by making such statements. Regards, Sudarshan [i apologise if these seemed hurtful and will refrain from such comments. But do understand that belief in such things does not necessarily bring devatAnugraha(for students of mantra-shAstra) nor chitta shuddhi(for vedAntins)- Satish] , " Satish " <satisharigela wrote: > > [i posted this response to Sudarshan Balasubramanian last Friday but > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 As you say, certainly belief in such things may not confer devatanugraha or chitta shuddhi. But at least they will bring bhakti, in this case, towards the Guru, which will pave way for everything else. Sudarshan , " sudarshanbalasubramanian " <sudarshanbalasubramanian wrote: > > " It is just sad to see that people take these things for granted. " > > ^^^It's fine if you do not want to accept these, but try not to hurt > the feelings of people that believe in them by making such > statements. > > Regards, > Sudarshan > [i apologise if these seemed hurtful and will refrain from such comments. But do understand that belief in such things does not necessarily bring devatAnugraha(for students of mantra-shAstra) nor chitta shuddhi(for vedAntins)- Satish] > > > > > > , " Satish " <satisharigela@> wrote: > > > > [i posted this response to Sudarshan Balasubramanian last Friday > but > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Dear satish, <<Thinking veda-s to be pauruSheya doesnt automatically make someone > venom-spitting. They evolved over time and that will be clear to > anyone devoid of blind faith. <It is just sad to see that people take these things for granted> Can you please throw some light on these above comments. , " Satish " <satisharigela wrote: > > [i posted this response to Sudarshan Balasubramanian last Friday but > it showed up in teh list only this week for whatever reason. More on > the shubhAgama panchaka post later] > > , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@> > wrote: > > > > > > Dear satish, > > > > First of all, why would acharyas resort to indology? > > This was already touched upon in the post that you replied to. > Please go through it. > > > > > " tasmAt shastra > > pramANam kArya akArya vyavasthitau " is the siddhanta they believe. > > They assimilate the essence of Shastras and leave the rest. > > Typically you will find traditional teachers acquiring mastery > mastery over a wide range of subjects. It is only in teh recent past > that such a narrow outlook is being encouraged. As an example take > the case of bhAskara-rAya: > > > > The works of indologists are useful for " westernised Indians " which > > has nothing to do with upasana. > > This is not correct. You may refer to earlier post on this topic > which deals with this. > > > > > BTW, most of the Indologists are " venom-spitting " people against > > Indian civilization who think Vedas to be " poursheya " . > > Thinking veda-s to be pauruSheya doesnt automatically make someone > venom-spitting. They evolved over time and that will be clear to > anyone devoid of blind faith. > > > > As regards the " subhagodaya Stuti " , the author of the hymn is not > the > > Parama Guru of Acharya Sankara. There are 2 Gaudapadas. > > :-)) This is what I am talking about. > > > Some of the startling facts were revealed to Shri > > Sacchidananda Nrisimha Bharati Swamigal during His antarmukha > > avastha. > > > > EXACT DATE OF BIRTH OF ACHARYA SANKARA ALONGWITH THE PLACE OF BIRTH > > AND HIS MOTHER'S PLACE OF BIRTH AND SAMADHI WERE REVEALED TO > > SWAMIGAL. SWAMIGAL HAD WRITTEN NOTES OF HIS REVELETIONS AND ARE > > PRESERVED TILL DATE. > > It is just sad to see that people take these things for granted. > > > > > Could any of your Indologists do this? > > They are neither your's nor mine. We take only those things from > their works that help us understand and preserve our traditions. > Refer to the examples in the previous post. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.