Re: Sri. Mani's Response to Sankara Response
From the Bhakti List Archives
• July 9, 1999
I thank Venkat and Anand for their thoughtful and devout responses. I tend to approach these issues from a less dogmatic perspective, so please bear with me. I wholeheartedly agree with Anand's statement that Ramanuja's commentaries represent the best systemization of Vedanta philosophy, and can only echo his praise of the bhAshyakAra: > The core philosophical > part is eternal and was only "re-established" with a sound > footing by bAshyakArar [sic], I think the key phrase is that the "core" of Ramanuja's philosophy is eternal; the various supporting formulations, however, have evolved over time as an interplay and as outgrowth of debate between scholars of Advaita, Visishtadvaita, Dvaita, and non-Vedantic thinkers. It is clear that Ramanuja bases his thoughts on ancient, pre-Sankaran writers such as Dramida, Tanka, and the venerable Bodhayana, all of whom probably lived in the first few centuries A.D. at the latest. However, these great authorities even influenced Sankara and later Advaitins to some degree, as some of them are quoted as authorities in Advaitic works. This was possible because these early writers' works were incomplete, and it was possible for different thinkers to selectively extrapolate some concepts. [Impartial scholars generally agree, however, that these early philsophers are clearly closer to Visishtadvaita than Advaita.] I personally do not attribute the greatness of Ramanuja's philosophy to his being a "nitya-sUri", a pre-anointed perfect being. I think of him as someone who carefully and critically studied all the religious philosophies of his time, finally concluding that only Yamuna's ideas came close to the original intention of the Vedas. I find Ramanuja very interesting because, like any great thinker, he *does* borrow ideas, taking what he thinks makes sense and using others' ideas against them. Clearly Ramanuja was unique -- his life and work spell this out -- but what was the source of his greatness, one may ask. This is an unanswerable question, clearly it is in large part to God's grace, but I think it unnecessary to posit that his authority or uniqueness stems from his being an "avatAra" of sorts (in fact, neither Desika, Maamunigal, or even Amudanaar assert this). rAmAnuja dAsan, Mani
- Next message: Mani Varadarajan: "Re: Prapannamrita-tarpana"
- Previous message: Narasimhan Krishnamachari: "SrI deSika stotra-s - 17. SrI acyuta Satakam - Part 1."
- Maybe in reply to: Venkat Nagarajan: "Re: Sri. Mani's Response to Sankara Response"
- Next in thread: Anand Karalapakkam: "Re: Sri. Mani's Response to Sankara Response"
- Reply: Anand Karalapakkam: "Re: Sri. Mani's Response to Sankara Response"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]