[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (H. Krishna Susarla) wrote:
>>>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 wel
>>l
>>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.
Well, even if a charvaka learns about the fine points of any system, be it
Visishtadvaita or Advaita and argues and gives quotations and criticizes the
interpretation of the respective school, he cannot be dismissed saying that he
is after all a charvaka. After all, I am sure you must be aware that Ramanuja
argued with Advaitins and converted them to Visish*. He could not have learnt
it from an advaitin guru and practiced it and then opposed it. This clearly is
Guru-droha. Kumarila Bhatta did such a thing and immolated himself over a slow
fire as he found that the Veda advocated such a means of death as atonement. So
I'll have to dis-agree with you here. It's not necessary to learn a system from
a guru who practices the same system to criticize it.
>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.
Well, by expertise and I don't mean some one like Ramanuja or Madhva or
Shankara etc. They are certainly far and few, like one every 200-300 years
perhaps :-).
>>There is nothing ambiguous about "which does not forbid sleeping with other
>>men's wives". There is nothing ambiguous about "adulterous desires" either.
>>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.
Well, as far as the translated verse given by Danielou, I have to disagree. He
says the "Sama Veda does not forbid" => the highest sanction of the sruti is
given. However, I agree with you that the translator might have mis-interpreted
the verse.
>regards,
>
>-- HKS
Ramakrishnan.
--
That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not
see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperish-
able. But, there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - IV.iii.23
