From: narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Re: On Indian Civilization being the oldest...
Keywords: Adi Sankara, Madhvacharya, Ramanujachrya
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:11:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxKzF7.5sC
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

In article <BxKLrF.769@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>
>In article <BxBoqK.1xr@cs.psu.edu>, narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana) writes:
>> In article <MANI.92Nov6130141@sabotage.Berkeley.EDU> mani@cs.stanford.edu writes:
>> >In article <Bx7LJF.7D3@cs.psu.edu> narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana) writes:
>> >
>> Alvars (more specifically of Nammalvar) which is Tamilian. But the vedanthic
>> aspect of it is fully Aryan; meaning that it is Badarayana's axiomatization
>> of the Brahman that was the fulcrum of all the south Indian thought. In 
>> analogical  reasoning up with the axioms is perhaps the toughest especially
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> at that abstract level. The credit for such abstract and superlative
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> metaphysical thoughts should always go to the Aryan rishis. I am not
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>      Would you please care to explain what you mean by "The credit
>      for such abstract and superlative metaphysical thoughts should
>      always go to the Aryan rishis" ? 
>
>      Is this one of the axioms of Badarayana's or Narayana's ? ;-)
>
>      [ I don't mean any disrespect to Badarayana or Aryan rishis
>       whom I respect. But I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by
>       'should always go to the Aryan rishis'.  It sounds like
>       some 'exclusivity' of some sorts !! which I've not heard expressed
>       so eloquently before !]
>

This is a genuine question. I will answer you. The Aryan upon their
arrival into the continent went upon discovering the nature of the Self.
Their initial thoughts were purely speculative and wonderful. They
recorded their personal experiences as hymns. These hymns which are just
poetic aspects were refined to beutiful pieces. These are what we call
the vedic hymns. Very soon they felt that their ritual component is the one
that relates their self to the Brahman. They systamatized the rituals
as Brahmanas; an appedage to Vedas. But their thought processes 
developed further than the rituals; there came the philosophical
aspects of the aryan civilization which are the Upanishads. Each
veda (by now four) has hymns, the brahmanas and a set of Upanishads.
This totality of work is attributable to a single person. There were
a lot of people (basically the rishis) who were responsible for
developing the volume of thought.

These thoguhts were developed over a millenium. But by then arose the
need to systematize the volume of work; by then the work was so
exhaustive that there was a need to put together the quint essentials
of the thought processes into a set of axioms. Because the nature of
discourse is founded on an infite object without any limit
properties, serveral people over several centuries worked on formulating
a set of axioms that will allow people to reason about the nature of
Brahman (or what we call as the desire to know the Brahman). The
axioms were constructed and discarded and reconstructed and the like. 
In so doing, the rishis of the time were interested that whatever
they formulate as axioms, they should be short, concise, have
no redundancy, and above all should not cause discrepencies
in the understanding of the meaning. Badarayana alias VedaVyasa
systematized the axioms and put together the entire thought into
what are called Brahma Sutras. In the Brahma Sutras, the order of 
the sutras is also important. They very crisp and often requires
a lot of training in thought to obtain an understanding. 
Every philosopher worth his salt starts from this set of sutras.
Shankara provided a commentary known as Shankara Bhashyam on the
Brahma Sutras and subsequently propounded his own understanding
and explication of these in the form of his Advaita siddhanta.
Ramanuja also did the sameexcept that he now accounted for 
the Shankara's Advaita siddhanta.  (I think his work is called
Vedantha Sara; I am subject to correction here). 
Even before Shankara or Ramnuja, the impact of Brahma Sutras
were felt by Buddhism. Though Buddha was a Kshatriya, the
Buddist Sutras were Written by Brahmanas and drew heavily 
from Veda Vyasa's work. The same is true of Jainism, though
to a lesser degree. 

Subsequent to the compilation of the Brahma Sutras, compilation 
of Puranas took place. By then the whole of the country was ripe 
with Krishna Bhagavatism.The Alvars (in vaishnavite Bhakthi) and 
the Nayanars (of the Saivite variety) are a product of the Bhakthi cult
sweeping across India. Ramanuja   synthesized this devotional 
aspect of the Alvars into the Vedathic framework with his 
Qualified Nondualism (or Vishistadvaita). Devotionalism
was not captured in Shankara's Adavita siddhanta. Where as
the synthesis of of devotionalism into the main stream vedanthic
thought is Ramanuja's original (and an exceptional contribution),
Ramanuja did not in any  way alter or extend the Brahma Sutras
of Veda Vyasa.  He only showed that, when interpreted appropriately,
devotionalism is consistent with the axioms of Veda Vyasa.
Thus formulating the Brahma Sutras was perhaps the hardest effort; 
any one who knows how to axiomatize systems will understand this.

That is the reason why I pointed out that the credit for establishing
a set of axioms with which people can reason always goes to the
Aryan (he was the son of an Aryan father and a nonaryan mother)
Badarayana. Every subsequent philosopher who worked on the
vedantha paid tributes to Veda Vyasa at the beginning of their
work. In saying that credit goes to Veda Vyasa, it is the way 
we attribute credit to works in science. I never said that
the credit is exclusive. Or I never said that credit for 
metaphysical thoughts has exclusivity; in that only Aryans
should think or capable of that. Because your thought 
processes are always based on racist overtones, you immediately
conjured up this exclusivity notion.

>      What need to be known is given in the short 'naan aar' ( = Who am I)
>      by Sri Ramana Maharishi. Too much metaphysics is counter productive,
>      and Sri J.Krishnamurthy used to ridicule the 'commentaries'. Sri


There are many who take differing approaches. These are all consistent
with the Brahma Sutras. Raman Maharshi and JK may have their views.
As I said in one of my previous notes, How I seek the Brahman 
is my own thought. None others. That is the foundation  in the
Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras.

>      Ramana Maharishi also says that there is no point in searching
>      garbage ( 'kuppai') [ he discourages excessive poring over too
>      abstract stuff. The implication is you don't achieve self realization
>      from such heavy reading :-) Remember, Sri Ramana Maharishi emphasized
>      Gnana margam and hence 'enquiry' but not in abstract metaphyics
>      but HONEST questioning of the mind to trace the origin of thoughts;
>      When one knows the 'basics' then Badarayana's work and other works
>      might make sense and even then more as corroboration of ones 
>      experience than as 'source'. ] 
>
>> trying in any way to diminish the contributions of Ramanuja, Shankara,
>> or of Madhva who are amongst the great philosophers that our land 
>> has generated.
>> 
>> >So the tradition of Ramanuja is clearly a product of the
>> >confluence of Sanskritic and Tamil streams of religion. I must
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >agree, however, that this is more of a cultural division than
>> >an ethnic one.
>
>      The above one sounds reasonable ! 
>      I think this is the first time you have said something positive
>      about Tamil contribution !
>      
>> >
>> >Mani
>> >
>
>     Regards
>     Selva Selvakumar
>