Mani Varadarajan's comments

[Guest guest]

I wish to reply to some of the points made by Mani in his reply to my

earlier posting.

 

* Regarding assumptions made while quoting Acharyas. For a

Mumukshu (seeker of salvation) questioning an Acharya's statement can only

be with the understanding that the Acharya is self realized and that the

questions are directed towards removing existing dvandva in the Mumukshu's

mind which have been caused by previous sins. Questions that by their

very nature question the motives and integrity of an Acharya does not help

a Mumukshu in his/her quest for salvation.

 

* As long as we think that the Acharya is just a mere human subject to

the same fallacies as we are, we will only be like a plane on a taxiway in

Laguardia airport in the middle of a thunderstorm. There will be no

possibility of takeoff. We should look upon our Acharya at least as

representing God's instructions and respect the positions of other

Acharyas. This becomes easy to understand if we accept the fact that the

only one rule common to all Jivatmas is we should do whatever the Single

Almighty God wants us to do. Just as in Newton's law motion is relative

only to an other object and there is no such thing as absolute motion, in

God's law there is no single uniform religion or code of conduct, but we

follow what our Acharya tells us. E g in Srivaishnava tradition the Aarti

flame is thrown away after the Aarti is complete while in all other Hindu

traditions, it is accepted as Prasadam by putting one's hand over the

flame and placed on one's head. What the Srivaishnava acharya says is

right for the Srivaishnava and other teachers say is right for their

followers only and not for us. If this group is called Srirangam and

Prapatti one will assume that fundamental Srivaishnava principles will not

be questioned. This includes the fact that Sriman Narayana alone is the

Supreme God and that only those not in contact with Triguna Sattva, Rajas

and Tamas are worshippable. It is for this reason that many of the Devata

may be great Prappanas or Bhagavan Himself (under some circumstances) but

they cannot be worshipped. Eg Hanuman who is worshipable today will

become the next Brahma. At that time he will still not be worshipped as

Brahma though he may be among the greatest of Prapannas. There is no end

to questions one can ask. How can Tirumangai Azhwar or Vipra Narayana be

considered worshipable considering their actions? Realization will come

only the grace of Acharyas of the calibre of Srimad Azhaghia Singar, when

we intially accept what they have to say. That will be possible only if

we look upon their words as Sri Krishna or Sri Lakshmi Nrsimhaswamy.

Srimad Azhaghiya Singar Himself has said in a lecture that very few people

realize that Acharyas are capable of giving Tattva Gnyanam and since He

sits eats walks and falls sick just like they do.

 

Regarding comparison of unrealized offensive statements to a frog's

croaking: Yes it was harsh and I apologise. Krishna Prasad and Dileepan

made a dignified defence. But the point of such statements being of no

value to a Mumukshu stands.

 

What I said about Christos and meaning of the Greek word was a quote from

a video interview by a French Roman Catholic Cardinal. I do not see a

reason to question his understanding of his scripture in this

instance, since he is only a couple of levels below a pope. No linguist

has told me that Krishta and Christos are in no way etymologically

related. Do you know of an expert in Sanskrit and Greek? Irrespective of

whether there is an etymological relation or not all 3 western religions

require their followers to worship the single Almighty God, do what He

tells us to do and all protection is promised. This is an exact parallel

to Sarva Dharman Parityajya. A fully surrendered Christian or Jew may or

may not go Sri Vaikuntha, but there is no doubt that he enjoys God's

protection.

 

No one who has posted anything on this bulletin board in the couple of

weeks I have been on it has had any quarrel with other religions. The

fact remains however, that by the practice of Shaivism, one does not get

relief from the material world. One goes to Shiva loka from where one has

to come back unless he takes to the worship of Narayana. Sarvadeva

Namaskaaram may go to Keshava but the result of Sarva Deva Aradhana is not

the same as exclusive Aradhana to Narayana.

 

Jaganath.

[Guest guest]

Jay.Bharadwaj wrote:

 

 

* * Regarding assumptions made while quoting Acharyas. For a

* Mumukshu (seeker of salvation) questioning an Acharya's statement can only

* be with the understanding that the Acharya is self realized and that the

* questions are directed towards removing existing dvandva in the Mumukshu's

* mind which have been caused by previous sins. Questions that by their

* very nature question the motives and integrity of an Acharya does not help

* a Mumukshu in his/her quest for salvation.

*

* * As long as we think that the Acharya is just a mere human subject to

* the same fallacies as we are, we will only be like a plane on a taxiway in

* Laguardia airport in the middle of a thunderstorm. There will be no

* possibility of takeoff. We should look upon our Acharya at least as

* representing God's instructions and respect the positions of other

* Acharyas. This becomes easy to understand if we accept the fact that the

* only one rule common to all Jivatmas is we should do whatever the Single

* Almighty God wants us to do.

 

<rest deleted>

 

What I am going to say here may not be acceptable to many.

Elevating the status of the guru/acharya to that of God is

not right. Show me one quote from shruti which says that.

Likewise, equating all acharyas to, say, Sri Ramanuja is not

acceptable to me. It is downright insulting.

 

I have had the (mis)fortune of seeing Srimad azhagiya singar,

the predecessor of the current one (sorry, don't remember the

number etc.) in his full fury, blasting an innocent devotee

with choice abuses.

 

This was in Sri Rangam, when I had gone to his ashram at

about 3:00 p.m. on a hot summer day. I had been reasonably

trained in the protocols to be employed but such was not the

case with an young man who was waiting there to see this

godman. This young man was about 25 years old, a native of

Sri Rangam, but had gone to settle down in Bombay as a small

child, and had completely lost his roots.

 

He had come back to Sri Rangam to rediscover his roots and

perhaps his religion too but little did he expect that he was

in for a rude shock. Sri azhagiya singar woke up and his

assistant let the two of us in. This young man fell at

azhagiya singar's feet and lo and behold, touched his feet -

apparently a sin! That was it! azhagiya singar jumped from

his seat (at that old age of 80+, I guess) and said certain

things which could be roughly translated as

 

"%$$%$%^*( ^*&^#$&**(& *(&(&*(, he touched me &*^*&(()"

 

It reminded me of

 

"angaN NYaalam ancha" of thirumangai aazhvaar except that

this young man was no demon and azhagiya singar was no

vishnu!

 

That very moment, he was no more my acharya.

 

A man, who can not control his anger is not fit to be my

acharya. A man who drove away an innocent devotee rather than

leading him to the right path is not fit to carry the mantle

of Sri Ramanuja.

 

Unless I see some extraordinary qualities in someone, I will

not consider him as my acharya. Sri Ramanuja will be my

acharya. If for my "blasphemy" I will have to rot in hell, so

be it. I would rather enjoy that.

 

--badri

 

-----------------

S.Badrinarayanan

Graduate Student

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Cornell University

-----------------

[Guest guest]

Badri's comments are interesting. When I look at the enormous output

on Sri Vaishanvism, the commonality is BELIEF. There is no rational

explanantion, and many of us work in fileds where proof is arequisite.

The only place for BELIEF is sel consolation or inner peace due to

one's own inabilit to accept the cahncy nature.

But main point is there are great men who are also Jeers. My experience

is worth reporting. Born aan Iyengar, I chose to transgress and marry a

Westerner much to the shame of of my loving kin. Later when my dad died,

I did not go to the cremation feeling that I would cause unnecessary

concerns. But my elder sisters were upset that I did not offer

any pindas. In 1977, I went to India to Srirangam to do so to please

my sisters. One of them lived there. The problem was how to get me in

to the Parakalmatam for the ceremoney. My sister and her husband went out

for consultations. I was not able to wait out the long delay and

went to the Mutt by myself. Some of the people had known my

dad who spent his last days near by. I was ushered to th Holy Jeer.

I riased my hand sin respect and told him the purpose I came for.

I also explained to him that I had wedded a Westerner and was no

longer llving the life of a brahmin. It was a great surprise to

me when he told me that he felt it was of no concern and he would

permit me to di the Shradda in the Parakala mutt sannidhi inside

the temple corridors. He further told me that he remembered my father

as an old admirer of his and that he would be pleased.

He also instructed his assistants to provifde

the needed services. When I was about to depart, my sister and her

husband walked in ad were rather surprised at the turn of events.

The holy Jeer was rather unusal, far more considerate than my

own sisters. One cannot judge rashly their greatness.

I went thru the ceremony the next day but I am not sure whether it

served any other purpose than mys sisters' satisafction that I

did it.

The great man had all the power to throw me out but he did not.

[Guest guest]

I would like to clarify the purpose of this mailing list.

It is not merely for repeating the statements of previous

teachers or simply extolling the virtues of one saint or

another. Rather, I have always planned that this mailing

list will help in the process of religious and philosophical

inquiry, particularly when it comes to personal devotions.

 

Now, I do understand that respect and bhakti to acharyas

is a fundamental part of many Sri Vaishnavas' personal

devotions, and I do not mean to dissuade them from this.

However, it must be understood as to who a true acharya

is. Badri's comments are most apropos in this respect.

An Acharya is worthy of respect primarily by setting

the right example for his or her sishyas. Sri Pillai

Lokacharya and Sri Vedanta Desika explain in detail the

qualities of a true acharya, emphasizing calmness, devotion,

and kindness as the principal attributes -- but never

do they *equate* the random acharya with the Paramaatma,

or even an Azhvaar.

 

So, I don't think that Krish's statements were meant

to insult the Azhagiya Singar. He was just writing his

opinions, though perhaps he was a bit carefree in his usage

of words. That in and of itself is not a sin. I don't think

it anything to get too bothered about. In addition, if Krish

had never spoken up, this topic of who is a real acharya

would not have come up.

 

I believe this topic is seriously worth discussing.

 

Krish writes:

* Badri's comments are interesting. When I look at the enormous output

* on Sri Vaishanvism, the commonality is BELIEF. There is no rational

* explanantion, and many of us work in fileds where proof is arequisite.

 

I think you are mistaken here. There are many Sri Vaishnavas

who do not know the innards of the system, and rely on pure

belief. Not everyone can be experts in philosophy. However,

even a skim of the Ramanuja's Sribhashya should convince one

of the intellectual and rational depth of the man. Azhvaar

says, ``Don't accept it just because I say it; think about

it deeply, and you too will realize that Narayana is all this.''

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Ref. The only reason for disbelief is confusion

I differ. One can remove the "dis" in above also.

All actions are to an extent for self-fulfilmment, and that includes

praising an Acharya or assuming Narayana as the Supreme. And it is

one's birth, to an extent a pure accident. The concept of the

universe has changed and changing rapidly. To preseume that the

Alwars and Acharyas's words are the ultimate is open to question.

Hindus view birth and life a suffering, a rlease to moksha is

sought. I feel that Brahma's place in the concept of Trimurthi

is degraded since we view birth as a punishment.

My own question is how does all this tie-in with our day to day life.

By our own Shastras, any SriVaishanvite leaving the Bharat ksetra

has failed in his ritualistic practice. Daily Sandhyavanda may

be just a confession, but what is is its use if one doesnot correct

it. Can one srick to Bhakti alone and if so where does it stop-

just an hour a day?

I thought I would get to know and socialize and correspond with

fellowmen, may be some guys out there from Triplicane. But the

views here are from those trying to search back to their roots.

It is interesting though.