[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
Ramakrishna wrote:
>>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.
On such a controversial issue as whether or not Ramanuja has forbidden
adultery, it MUST be learned from followers of Ramanuja. First of all, the
very insinuation is insulting to one of the greatest acharyas of all time.
Also, I pointed out that there is a clear personal bias on the part of this
Alain Danielou to suggest that Ramanuja would believe in such a thing. Since
Danielou has seen fit to translate Kama Sutra, it is very possible his
beliefs are more materialistic than other scholars. It would therefore suit
him to misrepresent others to prove his point.
Basically, the burden of proof is on the challenger. This Danielou is
suggesting something that is truly absurd, and offensive. Insulting a
devotee of God is a very serious offense. So it is better not to take it
seriously until proof can be provided. Proof, obviously, would require exact
references to the place where the statement was alleged to have been
written. A stray English translation (which could be inaccurate) is not very
solid evidence.
>
>>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 :-).
Anyway, if you want someone to find the verse, and you are not willing to
provide more specific references (what literature is it in, what chapter,
etc.) then the only person who can ever respond to it is someone who has
memorized EVERY line of Ramanuja's works verbatim. That's why you are not
likely to get a response until you can be more specific.
Going back to my first point: let's say I read in a Carvaka book (not that I
would ever waste my time on such things) that Sankara allowed his disciples
to engage in extramarital sexual affairs without restriction. Now, I could
do two things:
1) I could believe the Carvaka's statement about Sankara until someone from
Sankara's sampradaya denied it
2) Realizing the Carvaka's bias, and the fact that he is not a follower of
Sankara, I could toss his claims aside and accept the most likely
conclusions about Sankara until I was proven wrong by solid evidence from
Sankara's own works.
In this case, I pick #2. It's only reasonable to assume that the claim is
bogus, since Sankara was a great renunciant. The burden of proof should be
on the Carvaka, and I certainly would not accept stray English translations
of verses allegedly attributed to Sankara when no verse numbers or other
references were provided.
So, I am saying that others should give the same respect to Ramanuja. It is
up to Danielou to give solid evidence about what Ramanuja allegedly said.
HKS
