Re: A very interesting piece of history - for some

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:32 am

you mention good points rashmun. perhaps to prevent carnal temptations in the sangha, he set up additional rules or vinaya for the women and made tonsuring compulsory for both.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:40 am

Rashmun wrote:--> i am not claiming that all the exciting stuff was happening in north india. i am only claiming that no new religion started in south india.
--> the reason we think of Ramanuja's philosophy as a philosophy within hinduism is because Ramanuja accepts the validity of the Vedas.

This is like saying that no new religion developed in Europe over two thousand years, completely ignoring the revolutionary developments of reformation, calvinism, protestantism etc on the grounds that the new denominations also accepted the validity of the Bible.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:45 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> i am not claiming that all the exciting stuff was happening in north india. i am only claiming that no new religion started in south india.
--> the reason we think of Ramanuja's philosophy as a philosophy within hinduism is because Ramanuja accepts the validity of the Vedas.

This is like saying that no new religion developed in Europe over two thousand years, completely ignoring the revolutionary developments of reformation, calvinism, protestantism etc on the grounds that the new denominations also accepted the validity of the Bible.

the sankhya philosophy was a revolutionary philosophy for its times. for one thing, sankhya is an athiestic philosophy at least in its original form. but it accepts the validity of the Veda. it has been argued that original sankhya only pays lip service to the Veda.

traditionally, at least, philosophies in india have been classified into two categories: astika and nastika. in the former are sankhya, yoga, mimansa, vedanta, nyaya, and vaisesika. in the nastika category are budhism, jainism, and charvaka/lokayata.

this classification is not done on the basis of whether the philosophy accepts the existence of god or not but on the basis of whether it accepts the validity of the Veda.

calvinism, protestantism, etc. were revolutionary developments in Christianity but i would argue that they were not even as revolutionary as the sankhya philosophy in its original form. and yet sankhya is considered a part of hinduism.

Ramanuja accepts the authority of all hindu scripture and writes commentaries elaborating his views on the same. Adi Sankara tried to argue for the supremacy of Upanisadic wisdom over the ritualistic aspects of hinduism. Ramanuja argues that the ritualistic aspects of hinduism (karma kanda) complement the Upanisadic wisdom and one should not be taken to be superior to another.

I would like to know whether you consider Ramanuja's philosophy to be revolutionary. if yes, please give your reasons.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:24 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:you mention good points rashmun. perhaps to prevent carnal temptations in the sangha, he set up additional rules or vinaya for the women and made tonsuring compulsory for both.

--> what were the additional rules for the women?

by Sponsored content