Addressing some issues of tradition

[Guest guest]

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ramanuja/archives/oct03/msg00145.html

This is being posted to bring to general awareness. If you have questions or

objections reply only to my personal id - Thanks

It addresses some issues of tradition. Read this carefully and kindly do not

respond to this immediately. Read and give sometime to ponder about the

contents. This is authored by a traditional shrIvaiShNava.

 

Let us not get caught into the madness of finding shruti pramANa for the avatAra

of this or that AchArya. If one group fancies and states with flaky,

non-coherent and outright silly arguments that for our AchArya we can find

mention in shruti, the other group also can do the same. Example: Madhvas claim

their AchArya as an avatAra of mukhya prANa and evidence is from the bAlittha

sUkta or Rgveda etc etc. So you dont really gain anything with that line of

arguments.

 

Especially take note of the statments in ** double stars:

These are not the times to get away with AchArya said this so it is right. If we

do that, we simply lose and our credibility and will be soon scrapped and get

extinct. So let us get out of this loser mentality.

 

satyaM eva jayate.

 

-------

 

Dear Shri Srinivasachary,

Kindly forgive me if I have offended you in my reply. I understand

that your reply was for both me and Shri Sriram and I'll try to

clarify my position.

 

1. The context:

I recently pointed out the on-going 'assualt' on our religion (in

broader sense) which isn't good news for us, Shri Vaishnavas in

particular. You yourself pointed out we are a numerically

insignificant population when contrasted with other ethno-demographic

groups. Thanks to marxist historians, eurocentrist scholars and neo-

vedantins, people nominally adhering to our tradition end up self-

hating one (you might be thinking I am one too :-) ). You are very

correct in pointing out the 'patronizing attitude' of neo-vedantins

towards Vishistadvaita philosophy.

Are our younger generation taught about our philosophy, ritual,

tradition? Not really right? This in itself is only part of the

problem. A complementary issue is that, what they are exposed to? (I

am not implying whatever they are exposed to are all wrong). A mixed

baggage - Vedanta as interpreted by Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna,

for example (if at all they are interested in 'spiritual aspects' of

our culture. May be I am giving too much credit and they are only

interested in who is the next big thang - Dhanush or Madhavan,

jyothika or sneha :-) - maybe for sophisticated ones, replace with

hollywood thespians). Probably our spiritually inclined spawns know

more about 'yoga', 'kundalini', 'tantra', 'meditation', 'Max Mueller'

than Lokacharya or Desika.

I am trying to follow a methodology in this situation, which brings

us to the next section.

 

2. Methodology:

I feel there comes a point in time, when old methodologies need to be

reconsidered. You pointed out that probably I had an aversion to

itihAsas and purANAs. I stand accused (partially). To give an

analogy, bible scholars after research have concluded that the new

testament (NT) wasn't written all at once. The earliest part of

currently known gospel (of Mark) was written somewhere around AD 70

and other gospels were written even later. This is all nonsense for a

believing christian. We as outsiders can objectively look at the

arguments given by the scholars and see whether they are logically

compelling, right?

How can a purANa be an authority, if it talks about Queen Victoria,

Muhammad, Jesus, rehashed story of Adam & Eve, rehashed story of

Noah's ark etc. (Bhavishyat purANa)? The most logical explanation is

that this is a text that was continuously changing down till 19th

century, right? So, it turns out that not one person was the author

of the purANa right? Careful analysis of all the purANas reveal that

they have been written and re-written a lot of times and

contain 'old' as well as 'new' materials - (sections of vAyu purANa

goes back to the time of vedas). Of course these are all nonsense to

a 'believer'.

What is better for us to do now? To anticipate these objections and

try to answer them or take a passive stance that our 'pUrvAchAryas

took them as pramANa'? **There was a time when you can get away

with 'it is true because it is said so in Apastambha dharma sUtra or

mahabharata or Vishnu purANa'.** **I am simply pointing out that this is not the

case anymore and if we want to guard our tradition from

attacks (intentional or unintentional), we have to use an updated

methodology now (our acharyas can't be blamed for not foreseeing what

type of objections would emerge in 20th century).**

**Something being a late composition is not necessarily an objection

for using it as a pramANa. But we have to be careful and keep in mind

that Veda Vyasa need not be the author of the texts we are having now

as purANas.**

 

3. The position of Vedas (and ancillary literature of Vedas):

I wouldn't have touched this if we hadn't claimed we accept the

entire Shruthi as authority. You mentioned that I went 'to the extent

of proposing Vishnu was insignificant according to Vedic Seers'.

(a) I don't claim that NarayaNa is impersonal.

(b) Legitimacy of other vedic 'deities' claim to be brahman:

If we accept the 'entire shruthi' as pramANa, rudra is mentioned

as 'devAnAm parama:' supreme God in Taittriya Aranyaka and also

termed as pashupathi. Brihaspathi is called brahman!!!!! in numerous

places in the very first khanda of taittriya samhita. This is no

different from another line in nArAyaNopanishad which says 'nArAyaNa

param brahma'. Do you think we have to turn a blind eye to all these

with the escape sequence 'all vedanta acharyas didn't doubt

NarayaNa's paratvam?'.

© Insignificance of 'Vishnu':

Again this comes from our stance that 'Vedas are the supreme

authority' or even 'if two dharma sutras differ on an issue, we have

to take them as alternatives' and 'if the dharma sutra contradicts

shruthi, shruthi vakya overrides the dharma sutra'. We see such an

importance given to Vedas. Shouldn't we re-think the position of

Vedas, especially if Vishnu really is treated as 'just another deity'

in vedas? How many passages do we see in yajur veda - " 11 butter

oblations to aditi, 9 oblations to soma, 12 oblations to vishnu, 15

butter oblations to Indra' - casual enumeration of Gods and Vishnu

among them?

Krishna & Balarama were called sons of Devaki in Chandogya BrahmaNam

(or in the section of the brAhmaNam popularly called as chandogya

upanishad). They were also mentioned as pupils of Rishi Sandipini.

Interestingly we find no superlative adjectives to Krishna or him

being avatara of Vishnu. This is simply one of the numerous

references where rishis and their shishyas were mentioned - like

upakoshala disciple of Jaabala satyakama or Dadhyanc teaching madhu

vidya to (Ashvins and ...forgot the name of other students).

While this reference is useful to point out the historical nature of

Krishna (somebody called Krishna, son of devaki had to exist), it is

very likely that chandogya brAhmaNam was composed before Krishna

became identified as avatara of Vishnu.