From: narayana@oracorp.com (K. T. Narayana)
Subject: Seetham's Blasphemy or Cheap Tickets To VaikunTam
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:08:00 GMT

In article <9212220022.AA11205@ece7.NIS.ece7> seetam@hub.eng.wayne.edu (Seetamraju Uday Bhaskar Sarma) writes:

Seetham writes that in the waker of islamic repression, the north-indian
Hindu culture suffered the worst damage and that what is left as Hindu
is nothing but an undignified (less than exotic) Laxmi-Mayi's Puja. This
is unlike the south india where we find a richness and variety in idol
worship (idolators of class). The Hindu renaissance of today that
we see in the North will ultimately lead to the revival of Brahmanical
vedic traditions unlike the Bhakti tradition of the South.

                                            (paraphrased from seetham)

The center piece of Hindu thought is intellectualism; in the prehistoric
period, it offered one of the finest intellectual freedoms that societies
could offer to thinking individuals. No stone was left untouched in the
pursuit of the intellect. The variety of sects, within and outside the
pale of Hindu thought, and their philosophies, are a testement to this 
freedom. In all this period, thought played the fundamental role
and religion a secondary role. Thus Brahmanas provided the needed Satvagunas
for the pursuit of the intellect, and the ritualistic component had
varying degrees of adherents. Within that thought process arose such
side streams as Buddhism and Jainism; whether they are a reaction
to Brahmanical hold on the society (rather the Kshatriya rebellion)
is debatable. This is because the concept of the Self and the Identity
of the Self and the Brahman is Kshatriya in origin; actually Kshatriyas
held this knowledge as a secret. Brahmanas became disciples of Kshatriyas,
learnt the Brahma-vidya from them, and then systematized the same in
their vedanta schools. It is this systematization that the brahmanas
are credited with. Thus the whole notion of Kshatriya rebellion in the
wake of Buddha and Jaina religions is but only a conjecture. The high
levels of intellectual freedoms and enormity of diversity allowed for
novel and unregimented thought processes. The brahmanas continously
encouraged and sustained this diversity of intellect and freedom of
thought.

This view of intellectual diversity supported by the ritualistic component
of Hinduism was current even in the times of Adi Sankara. This in spite
of the rampant Krishna Bhaagavatism, particularly in the south (means TN)
of the Alvar variety. It is not true that the Vedantic society of that day 
accepted Bhaagavatism as main stream religion. In deed Bhaagavatism offered
the worst form of worship; brahmanas who used to pursue Bhaagavatism were
consisdered lower (not socially but intellectually). Indeed Adi Sankara
dismisses Bhaagavatism as outside the pale of Vedanta. 

But Ramanuja (Ramanuja hailed from a Bhaagavata tradition),
without going into Agamas, independently synthesized the notion
of Bhakthi into the mainstream Vedanta. The word independently is very
important, because it is independent of the Agamas. Whether the Agamas
themselves were derived from the smrutis is a different issue. Thus
Bhaagavatism got accepted as mainstream Vedanatic thought;
it should be clearly noted that the Bhaagavatism as interpreted by Ramanuja,
but not all and sundry.

Ramanuja's cheif social contribution was to bring into the fold the idol
worship of the south. This worship was and is largely religion
and the synthesis is less than dialectic. With Bhakthi established
as a way to Moksha, unlike the Jnaana maarga of Sankara, intellectualism 
and the concept of freedom of thought took a back seat. Every one in
his own way went about Bhakthi. Note that the Bhakthi advocated by
Ramanuja is not the exterior worship that we see today; it is much
more than that. But people (ordinary and learned) looked upon it
as providing a cheap ticket to Moksha or VaikunTam. With the lack
of patronage, even brahmanas turned to Bhaagavatism as a means of Moksha
leaving aside the intellectualism that so illuminated the Vedantic thought.
Everybody in some sense became a "Bath room Bhaagavatar".

The Bhakthi regime was a serious blow to the development of secular
Hinduism. Actaully idol worship as exeplified by the TN variety is
the worst communal form of Hinduism one can find. It regidifies the
thought, sectarionizes the subjects, and worse makes people believe
that Moksha is something you can get by going to a temple. If one reads
the Thiruppavai, and the worship performed by AndaaL (we used to go
to the temple early morning every day in the Dhanurmasam period to
hear to the Thiruppavai), one clearly see that behind the facade
of total prapatthi of AndaaL (admirable that AndaaL is), there is a
total absense of any intellectualism. In other words, the religion
of the south immensely damaged the intellectualism and the secularism
of the Hinduism.
 
Thus the decline of Hinduism in the north, and the recent revival
of the brahminical vedantic tradition, along with the yagnas and
the yagas, is perhaps the best that we should hope for.
If it takes of, we will have more thinking Hindus than chest-beating
Hindus chanting "Ayappo-Swamyne-Ayappo" variety. Intellectualism
is the fulcrum of Hindu thought. It offered diversity, freedom thought,
and liberation of mind. More importantly, it offered individuality
of thought and action without the abiding structure.

...kt
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian