Neo-Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism

[Omkara]

I was never in here for a "scholarly debate" in the first place. To Seeker ji's glorification of Srimad Ramanuja, a snippet from Ramanuja's Sri Bhashya was posted in response, rather abusingly, to show as if Ramanuja was intolerant of non-Brahmins. To this, I did my best to show Ramanuja i) had close associates with to the point of many considering to be his 1st guru - a non-Brahmin and ii) he bravely gave away a certain sacred mantra to many non-Brahmins.

That's all there is for me in this. With this, I shall "debate" no more.

There is no justification for you to say such things about me. You and Seeker claimed that Ramanuja initiated Shudras/ had Shudras as gurus. I merely pointed out that this is factually incorrect. Why are we on this forum, if not to share knowledge and remove each other's misconceptions about Hinduism?

[Omkara]

Precisely this kind of enthusiastic adulation of vile text is the fodder for anti-brahminism fostered by people like EVR & Karunanidhi. The picture doesnt look good for 'traditionalists' in he future also. With the colonist inspired universal literacy , and white man inspired democracy ( everything neo ) things will get bleaker. More and people will have access to these texts , and I dont thing anyone likes the idea of being called a beast , unfit etc.. May be we should all root for monarchy and bring back the good old Kshatriya kings.

This is irrelevant, and a baseless argument, as philosoraptor pointed out. You claimed that Ramanuja initiated Shudras. I merely showed you that this is factually incorrect.

Besides, neither literacy nor democracy are 'neo' nor a legacy of colonialism. India had a much higher literacy rate than Europe in pre colonial times. There were republics in India in the ancient times, long before they existed in elsewhere. One such example I remember offhand is the Licchavi Kingdom

[Viraja]

There is no justification for you to say such things about me. You and Seeker claimed that Ramanuja initiated Shudras/ had Shudras as gurus. I merely pointed out that this is factually incorrect. Why are we on this forum, if not to share knowledge and remove each other's misconceptions about Hinduism?

What is initiation? giving out of a 'mantra' right? Ramanuja did give out Ashtakshari mantra, not just to 1 or 2, but many 'shudras' standing atop the temple tower at Thirukoshtiyur and yelling the mantra out.

[jignyAsu]

What is initiation? giving out of a 'mantra' right? Ramanuja did give out Ashtakshari mantra, not just to 1 or 2, but many 'shudras' standing atop the temple tower at Thirukoshtiyur and yelling the mantra out.

Please relax on this topic. Everyone seems to mean the best. I am impressed by your devotion to Sri Ramanuja.

This much said here are some facts:

1. Sri Kanchi Purna - Thirukkachi NambigaL is indeed considered one of Sri Ramanuja's Guru.
2. Sri Ramanuja got His Pancha samskaram administered through Sri Periya Nambigal,who also formally gave Him the Asthakshari mantra. He was a Brahmin as well as Thirukostiyur NambigaL.
3. Sri Ramanuja DID initiate all irrespective of their varna and even outside Varna (Buddhists and Jains). Our recorded history has a lot of such examples; incidents on initiation of Buddhists is even preserved in Melkote. There seems to be a difference on opinion within sect regarding eligibility of uttering the mantra (edited this)
4. This initiation did NOT change their caste at all - nor were they all allowed to chant Vedas (no one had a problem with that as well. But this did not stop Sri Ramanuja to consider Himself to be their servants.)
5. To (over)analyze the caste of SriVaishnavas was considered by Acharyas like Sri Parasara Bhattar (of 11th century) to be equal to digging a Vigraha to find out the material.
6. It is described in Guru Parampara that Sri Ramanuja give out the MEANING of Thirumantram (Astakshari) - to all the "SriVaishnavas" that visited the temple(and not all). Meaning - He was the first one to consider all disciples who had the interest but not qualification (sadhana/penance).

[philosoraptor]

Please relax on this topic. Everyone seems to mean the best. I am impressed by your devotion to Sri Ramanuja.

This much said here are some facts:

1. Sri Kanchi Purna - Thirukkachi NambigaL is indeed considered one of Sri Ramanuja's Guru.
2. Sri Ramanuja got His Pancha samskaram administered through Sri Periya Nambigal,who also formally gave Him the Asthakshari mantra. He was a Brahmin as well as Thirukostiyur NambigaL.
3. Sri Ramanuja DID initiate all irrespective of their varna and even outside Varna (Buddhists and Jains). Our recorded history has a lot of such examples; incidents on initiation of Buddhists is even preserved in Melkote. There seems to be a difference on opinion within sect regarding eligibility of uttering the mantra (edited this)
4. This initiation did NOT change their caste at all - nor were they all allowed to chant Vedas (no one had a problem with that as well. But this did not stop Sri Ramanuja to consider Himself to be their servants.)
5. To (over)analyze the caste of SriVaishnavas was considered by Acharyas like Sri Parasara Bhattar (of 11th century) to be equal to digging a Vigraha to find out the material.
6. It is described in Guru Parampara that Sri Ramanuja give out the MEANING of Thirumantram (Astakshari) - to all the "SriVaishnavas" that visited the temple(and not all). Meaning - He was the first one to consider all disciples who had the interest but not qualification (sadhana/penance).

Pranams,

I agree that overanalyzing one's caste background is rather non-devotional. That being said, I only ask to clarify Ramanuja's position and the facts of the matter. Sri Kanchipurna was considered Ramanuja's first "guru." But did Sri Kanchipurna initiate Ramanuja into study of the shruti, or is this more like a "shiksha guru?"

The rest of your comments are pretty much in line with what I had understood of Sri Ramanuja's position.

[jignyAsu]

Pranams,

I agree that overanalyzing one's caste background is rather non-devotional. That being said, I only ask to clarify Ramanuja's position and the facts of the matter. Sri Kanchipurna was considered Ramanuja's first "guru." But did Sri Kanchipurna initiate Ramanuja into study of the shruti, or is this more like a "shiksha guru?"

The rest of your comments are pretty much in line with what I had understood of Sri Ramanuja's position.

No, Sri Kanchipurna did NOT give any such initiation. Sri Ramanuja's study of Shruti happened with Yadhavaprakasha.

Since Kanchipurna used to talk with Kanchi Varadaraja (Lord Vishnu), He was consulted for some clarifications/confirmations on certain philosophies. For e.g. the summary of entire VishistAdvaita siddhanta was received this way (Hence Guru relation)..but no discussions on Vedas etc has been recorded. So He was His Siksha guru only.

Sri Ramanuja was initiated (with mantra etc) by Sri Periya NambigaL.

[Seeker]

This is irrelevant, and a baseless argument, as philosoraptor pointed out. You claimed that Ramanuja initiated Shudras. I merely showed you that this is factually incorrect.

Besides, neither literacy nor democracy are 'neo' nor a legacy of colonialism. India had a much higher literacy rate than Europe in pre colonial times. There were republics in India in the ancient times, long before they existed in elsewhere. One such example I remember offhand is the Licchavi Kingdom

These are oral history I was told when I was a child. I could have listened 'on namo Narayana' as vedic mantra. Arent you claiming a kingdom could be a 'republic' in your post based on your 'remembering?'.

That apart , after your quote & my verification after that , I see that we still support these kind of bile in the name of scriptures if this supports an ego boost to our own birth based superiority. While several seers have stated otherwise , we still refuse to believe them. In the end , we believe what we want to believe and reject everything else.

Saying that Brahmanas are the only one allowed to study vedas or perfrom poojas in one thing , saying that Shudra can not perfom that , because he is a beast , unworthy etc.. is altogether different. It is provocative - nothing 'traditional' about these. These so called 'scriptures' need to be called on the mat for being indecent - there is nothing 'traditional' in defending them.

Again hiding in the internet or in one mothers basement - one can 'defend' any kind on obnoxious views. Even KKK posts similar racial/ethnic bile .

[Sahasranama]

These are oral history I was told when I was a child. I could have listened 'on namo Narayana' as vedic mantra. Arent you claiming a kingdom could be a 'republic' in your post based on your 'remembering?'.

That apart , after your quote & my verification after that , I see that we still support these kind of bile in the name of scriptures if this supports an ego boost to our own birth based superiority. While several seers have stated otherwise , we still refuse to believe them. In the end , we believe what we want to believe and reject everything else.

Saying that Brahmanas are the only one allowed to study vedas or perfrom poojas in one thing , saying that Shudra can not perfom that , because he is a beast , unworthy etc.. is altogether different. It is provocative - nothing 'traditional' about these. These so called 'scriptures' need to be called on the mat for being indecent - there is nothing 'traditional' in defending them.

Again hiding in the internet or in one mothers basement - one can 'defend' any kind on obnoxious views. Even KKK posts similar racial/ethnic bile .

[philosoraptor]

These are oral history I was told when I was a child. I could have listened 'on namo Narayana' as vedic mantra. Arent you claiming a kingdom could be a 'republic' in your post based on your 'remembering?'.

That apart , after your quote & my verification after that , I see that we still support these kind of bile in the name of scriptures if this supports an ego boost to our own birth based superiority. While several seers have stated otherwise , we still refuse to believe them. In the end , we believe what we want to believe and reject everything else.

Saying that Brahmanas are the only one allowed to study vedas or perfrom poojas in one thing , saying that Shudra can not perfom that , because he is a beast , unworthy etc.. is altogether different. It is provocative - nothing 'traditional' about these. These so called 'scriptures' need to be called on the mat for being indecent - there is nothing 'traditional' in defending them.

Again hiding in the internet or in one mothers basement - one can 'defend' any kind on obnoxious views. Even KKK posts similar racial/ethnic bile .

Seeker, I will say this once. Your attacks on Omkar are vile, and your attributing unwholesome motivations to him simply because he quoted rAmAnuja's views on shUdras and vedas is disingenuous and uncalled for.

Members may recall that Omkar actually contested my view on the varNa & heredity discussions some months ago. Actually, they weren't really my views, but the views of shAstras as I had seen them to date. I am not personally attached to any specific view on the subject, above and beyond the principle of representing shAstras truthfully and accurately. And the truth is, the shAstras did treat heredity as a prerequisite for varNa as a general principle, and they did consider shUdra varNa as being ineligible for study of veda.

There is simply no getting around this. Adi shankara, rAmAnuja, and madhva each quoted the same dharma-shAstras supporting this view. Seeker might as well attack these great scholars instead of attacking us. Better yet, I suggest that he instead attack Lord Krishna, for at least that way he might get liberation, as Sishupaala did.

In the study of Vedaantic Hinduism and sanAtana-dharma, it may come out that there are many views which don't sit easily with our post-modern, egalitarian conceptions of morality. We can either face these truths head on, or pretend that they don't exist, and villify anyone who reminds us of them. But if we cannot be good representatives of our own traditions, we will lose credibility before those who would challenge us in public forums. I've already seen this happen several times, here in the United States, where well-meaning but poorly informed Hindus tried to attack bad ideas spread by academia by replacing them with wrong ideas. They were easily sniffed out as revisionists, and the greater Hindu community lost because of it.

The world may as well know that our culture has different ideas about many aspects of class and gender relations. We aren't doing ourselves any favors by denying them, and instead allowing hostile academics to tell the story of our dharmas from their standpoint. Please consider this before you malign someone who points out an inconvenient truth. If you want to have a constructive discussion on how we can discuss birth-based varNAshrama (and other politically inconvenient truths) before a non-Hindu audience, I suggest that you can look here for guidance from your fellow HDF members for a start.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

Ramanuja goes on to say- Smriti also declares this prohibition of hearing, and so on. 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with molten lead and lac; if he pronounces it his tongue is to be slit; if he preserves it his body is to be cut through.' And 'He is not to teach him sacred duties or is to be cut through.' And 'He is not to teach him sacred duties or vows.'

Like madhva and shankara, rAmAnuja's point here is merely regarding the unsuitability of shUdras for studying the veda. The quote given by him is not his original statement, but rather is from gautama-dharma-shAstra.

I think it is often lost on most that while rAmAnuja objected to shUdras studying veda, he did not necessarily endorse the idea of violent repercussions for such people. His early influence included a shUdra disciple of yamunAchArya (kAnchipUrNa) whom he revered for his devotion. There is also the famous legend of his publicly chanting the aShtAkShara mantra at great risk for his own spiritual life, just to give others the chance at getting liberation. We also are aware of stories in which rAmAnuja did in fact initiate shUdras (albeit not into study of the shruti), and there is shAstric pramANa substantiating this sort of initiation process.

I reviewed the statements in gautama-dharma-shAstra, and they are in fact there, along with other, stomach-twisting remarks prescribing nasty punishments for shUdras who do various things, like copulating with brahmin women, etc. Equally interesting is the fact that, as of this time, I have yet to find any stories in mainstream smRitis that support the idea that such punishments (molten lac in the ears and so on) were ever carried out. Of related interest is the fact that devotional purANas like bhAgavata purANa and viShNu purANa uphold the authority of these dharma-shAstras and the heredtiary varNAshrama hierarchy, and yet at the same time teach a world view of inclusiveness and compassion not just for people within the varNAshrama culture but also for those living outside it.

All of this leads me to believe, at this time at least, that these prescriptions for nasty punishments may not have been the social norm, and that their presence is similar in nature to statements like "He who pulls the rope of Lord Jagannaatha's chariot immediately gets liberation." Such statements convey a point about the merits of an action with promises of consequences that are not in fact observed when the actions is performed. In any case, this may deserve a separate thread of its own.

My main point here is that shrI rAmAnuja, despite upholding the varNAshrama hierarchy and traditional social regulations, demonstrated by his own behavior a standard of compassion for all varNas, as the purANas themselves teach. I'm fairly certain Omkar and other knowledgeable members are well aware of this. When we discuss about what varNAshrama is supposed to be, I just hope that the rest of us do not lose sight of that fact. varNAshrama-dharma and compassion, as described in our shAstras, are not mutually exclusive.

regards,