[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Any validation for vegetarianism in Hinduism
Anshuman Pandey <apandey@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> On 12 Jun 1995, Hari Krishna Susarla wrote:
>
> > No. First you need to back up that claim. Please show me an
authorized
> > translation of the Ramayanam (i.e. - one that came to us through
either the
> > Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, or Vishnuswami sampradayas) that says
that Lord
> > Rama took fish. Then I will consider this point.
>
> Why is it that only the Vaisnava sampradayas are the authorities on the
> translations of the Ramayana?
>
Any text, whether it be an original one, or a translation, a commentary,
a condensate, etc., has to avoid several conditions in order to merit
scholarly attention. The conditions are given in several places in the
classical literature -- for example, in Madhva's Kathaa-lakshana, which is
actually a manual or handbook for composing granthas. I'm quite certain
Naiyaayika and other schools also have very similar rules that specify
how a grantha should be.
I don't know all the pitfalls to be avoided, but here are a few that I
can remember:
1> Asatkaara (dishonor) -- the author should be competent to discuss his
subject, and must be genuinely interested in what he is doing; he must
not act whimsically or half-heartedly, and he must also start by
worshipping an Ishta-devata and his Guru. Even in secular science, the
issue of competence is considered to have importance; notice that the
medical community generally dismissed Linus Pauling's claims about the
potency of Vitamic C to cure colds, even tho he was a two-time Nobel
Prize winner in chemistry.
2> Heyatva (abjectness) -- the work should not be about subjects better
not studied; an excellent text that describes how to carry out genocide,
murder, rape, pillage, plunder, etc., is still not worthy of scholarly
notice. This is a reason why many do not like hate-filled Nazi
literature, even if it is very well written.
3> Vyarthatva (wastefulness) -- the work should not be about useless
subjects, nor about something already known or discussed threadbare
elsewhere. A standard example of a wasteful subject, as given in
literature, is "kaaka-dantaa-pariikshana," or "[an] examination of a
crow's teeth." We can grant that this subject may be of interest to some
ornithologists, but a work on it would be considered wasteful by audiences
interested in philosophy, and also by most others.
4> Vyaahati (contradiction) -- this can be of two kinds; sva-vyaahati or
self-contradiction, and para-vyaahati, or contradiction of other accepted
sources. If a work contradicts itself, or if it is in opposition to other
works accepted as pristine, then it is not worthy. Works by scientology
guru L. Ron Hubbard, and other such pieces, are discarded for this
reason.
5> Nyuunataa (nullity) -- this is similar to 'vyartha', but the
difference is that the subject of the text itself does not exist; a
detailed work describing a childless woman's son, a rabbit's horn, etc.,
would be of this kind. This is why many tend to dismiss works on UFOs,
astrology, etc.
6> Asangati (irrelevance) -- the work must not interleave irrelevant
topics while discussing the relevant ones, and also must not discuss
something other than what is suggested by its title, etc.
With all this, I think it is obvious why only the Vaishnava commentaries
and translations are accepted. Avaishnava authors of commentaries on
Vaishnava topics lack competence in the field of their literary endeavors,
their motives are questionable, and they are more than likely to discuss
irrelevant topics, and to be wasteful and contradictory, for not having a
good grasp of their subject.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Anshuman Pandey
>
>
>
>
