From: narayana@oracorp.com (K. T. Narayana)
Subject: Re: Kuram Narayana on AndaaL
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:07:30 GMT

In article <9212282045.AA16098@ho12.eng.ua.edu> bkannan@ho12.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan) writes:
>
>
>>In a previous article, narayana@oracorp.com (K. T. Narayana) says:
>
>>The Bhakthi regime was a serious blow to the development of secular
>>Hinduism. Actaully idol worship as exemplified by the TN variety is
>>the worst communal form of Hinduism one can find. It rigidifies the
>>thought, sectarianizes 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
>
>
>  Interesting. What on earth have yagnas to do with 'thinking'
>  that a  "Ayyapo...." chanting doesn't?? 
>
>  Neither one has any merit [proven] if your intention was to offer 
>  a rational alternative. 
>  

There was some introductory text which was maliciously deleted by the
guy who posted this excerpt into some other group. Read that part.
Indeed if you read Adi Sankara, Sankara does not regard
the Puurva Mimamsa as a necessary step for the knwoledge of
Brahman. On the other hand, if you go to Ramanuja, Ramanuja
insists that Puurava Mimamsa is a necessary first step for
the study of Brahman. That is the difference. If you can know that
there is an alternative. Having said that, even Sankara admits
that Puurva Mimamsa gives the individual the necessary saatviaka
gunas for the pursuit of Brahman. Extrenal Idol worship because of its
religious content may not yield the same.
Meditative idol worship (as I wrote in one of my previous notes
on sci) is a different category.

>>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
>>
>
>   Lest you forget, some of the practices of brahmins/vedantins have been/are
>   as much an object of ridicule [Universal, I assure you :-)] as is 
>   your contempt for 'chest-beating' by a partciular group of Hindu followers. 
>   *My* concern is that, in attempting to gloat over the brahminical/vedantic 
>   achievements of the past and the glory-to-be of the future :-)[by reverting 
>   to ......... practices], you could be doing more damage to Hinduism [intell-
>   ectual or otherwise ;; unwittingly :-) subjecting it to ridicule] than the 
>   combined assault of *all* those chest-beaters on 'intellectual' Hinduism :-)
>  
>   bk
>

Precisely! It is the divesity of thought admitted by the society of
the day that made it possible. It is the diversity of thought admitted
by the Hinduism of that day that made it possible. Indeed, even
atheism was encountered in those days. But the atheism of that day
is not the Dravidian racist variety. It was a philosophical system.
Even Madhvaa Charya had to account for materialistic arguments
in the formulation of his Dvaita Siddhaantha.

I have not shown any contempt for a particular group of followers.
I have only given an example of external worship.

>
>Disclaimer: I am no chest-beater of *any* variety :-)
>
>