[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Re; Siva as Yogi?
>susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (H. Krishna Susarla) wrote:
>>In any case, I do not understand the relevance of Kama Sutra (or
>>translations thereof) to discussions on spirituality. Since the Kama Sutra
>>is concerned with mundane material matters, it follows that anyone
>>interested in translating it will be also, and they he can easily misquote
>>someone to support his own interpretations. Just keep that in mind... I
>>certainly don't consider the translator of the Kama Sutra to be an authority
>>on Ramanuja. Certainly someone who thought it necessary to translate KS must
>>have an interesting set of biases.
>
>I am interested in Indian literature and history. I don't need to justify it.
>The matter of fact is that a guy who translates the Kama Sutra can be very well
>versed in Sanskrit and can do a good job of translating other things too.
>I clearly stated that this may have been quoted out of context and asked the
>experts on Ramanuja to speak up. If you are one then please give me the facts.
>
No, I am not a Ramanuja expert. Neither, I would say, is this Alain
Danielou. That's why I pointed this out. It is better to believe what
Ramanuja says from followers of Ramanuja. Just as it would be better to
learn about any philosophy from those who actually practice that philosophy.
>Instead of giving facts you are just trying personal attacks (as usual) by
>questioning my interests in spiritual matters.
No need to get upset, R. I am not questioning you. Only pointing out that
quotations by people outside Ramanuja's line (especially those that are
impossible to verify because they do not provide Sanskrit or verse numbers)
need not be given much importance.
>An expert on the Upanishads does not need the numbers. Even if one is not well
>versed one can easily find the verse. For ex, I am not an expert on the
>Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, but I easily found the quote Ken gave in a previous
>post. You may know that the BU is at least as big, if not bigger than the
>C.Upanishad.
Well, an expert on the Upanishads is not present on SRH (or if he is, he
certainly isn't saying anything). Experts are few and far between, so if you
want verification for a verse, then the courtesy should be to provide the
Sanskrit and the verse number.
>
>>it. In order to verify the above, one would have to read the whole Chandogya
>>(no easy thing). So, if I were trying to misrepresent a scripture, I guess I
>
>It IS quite easy. In any case V.viii is the necessary detail. I hope you are
>happy now.
There is no Vedic scripture which is easy to read, especially if you are
reading for meaning. It is for this reason that these scriptures must be
heard through the transparent via medium of a proper guru. If the scriptures
were so easy to read, then there would not be so many different interpretations.
>I am sorry I cannot please a scholar like you. But I asked the experts if this
>quote of Danielou was correct, I DID NOT state that he was correct. Since you
>responded to this I presume you are an expert on Ramanuja and have his
>commentary. Now why don't you look it up? I also clearly stated that I don't
>have R's commentary. How the heck would I be able to provide the original
>Sanskrit? Infact that's why I asked the EXPERTS on Ramanuja to speak up.
>Otherwise I'd have posted it as fact and not as a question.
I am not an expert on Ramanuja. But if I had his commentary, I would be
happy to look it up if I were given more specifics. As it is, it is hard to
verify what you have given because it is English only. Sometimes works like
this are indexed by Sanskrit verse. So, if you really want an expert to look
it up, I suggest you provide more specifics as to what verse this is, where
it is from, etc. Otherwise you might not get a response from anyone.
>There is nothing ambiguous about "which does not forbid sleeping with other
>men's wives". There is nothing ambiguous about "adulterous desires" either. The
>quoted statement, Danielou claims, was said by Ramanuja himself, not just the
>left hand part.
I am no expert, but taking the sentence as it is, I notice that Ramanuja
(assuming he actually said this) equates adultery with rites of the left
hand. Now, if "rites of the left hand," is a good thing, then I suppose you
could say he is justifying adultery. But things associated with the left
hand are frequently considered to be unclean. For example, you only clean
yourself with the left hand while you eat with the right. Also, twitching
signs on the left side are supposed to be inauspicious omens, for example.
So, it actually sounds to me like he is condemning adultery.
regards,
-- HKS
