Traditional dates vs scienti

[Guest guest]

I accept Mani's arguments regarding the limited validity of

Pratyaksha Pramana and Aunmana Pramana. As regards the dates, there

are still a large number of Srivaishnavas who accept the traditional.

Since Mani says that devout Srivaishnavas do not accept traditional

dates, I shall ask someone to put this question to the Jeer of Sri

Ahobila Mutt and I shall accept whatever dates He accepts. At least

for the followers of Sri Ahobila Mutt, the Jeer is a Mukta Purusha

and His statements therefore come from Lord Hayagriva Himself. I do

not know the other individuals. As Mani himself pointed out there

have been individuals who claiming to be Srivaishnavas have attempted

to reduce the stature of Azhwars to Baddha jivatmas. So one needs to

be very careful about what one accepts.

 

Jaganath.

[Guest guest]

On Dec 15, 10:06am, Jaganath.Bharadwaj wrote:

> At least

> for the followers of Sri Ahobila Mutt, the Jeer is a Mukta Purusha

In reply Mani Varadarajan writes:

With no disrespect intended, I would humbly like to point

out that calling any person on Earth other than God a

``mukta purusha'' is in complete violation of Visishtadvaita

philosophy. No doubt the sannyasis of Ahobila Matham are

great acharyas and scholars and deserve to honored as such;

however, jIvanmukti is explicitly denied by Sri Vaishnava

acharyas beginning with Ramanuja. The Jiyar may be considered

an exalted being and worshipped as one would worship God Himself;

however, there is no doubt that the Jiyar is not a mukta.

 

Once again, with no disrespect intended, I am nearly certain

that the Jiyar himself would say that he is not a mukta.

 

Mani

Here is an extract from a letter written by the then Asthana Vidvan

of Sri Ahobila Mutt to the English/Telegu editors of Nrsimha Priya

under the instructions of the then Jeer appointee Srivan Satakopa Sri

Narayana Yateendra Mahadesikar. " Sri Adivan Satakopa Yateendra Maha

Desikan was the Founder of this great Sampradaya, who was blessed

with the robes of Sanyasi and Presha Mantra by Malola Himself in the

form of a Yogi and who initiated this never declining line of

Acharyas. His successors all carried His mantle with great

distinction and divinity and have been shining as Muktas."...

 

The Jeer may be the first to agree that He is not a Mukta but then

Nammazhwar to Vedanta Desikar have all said the same thing. I am not

sure if Mani and I are talking about the same thing here. Per the

English translation of Vedanta Desikars works a Mukta is one who

serves Sriman Narayana "at all times, in all places and under all

circumstances and who looks upon this world as Narayana's weapons and

ornaments." Ramanujacharya in His Vedartha Sangraha states that two

types of atmas take part in Narayana's Leela Vibhuti (of which this

earth is a part) - The Baddha jivatmas and the Mukta Jivatmas.

 

Jaganath.

[Guest guest]

On Dec 15, 10:06am, Jaganath.Bharadwaj wrote:

> At least

> for the followers of Sri Ahobila Mutt, the Jeer is a Mukta Purusha

 

With no disrespect intended, I would humbly like to point

out that calling any person on Earth other than God a

``mukta purusha'' is in complete violation of Visishtadvaita

philosophy. No doubt the sannyasis of Ahobila Matham are

great acharyas and scholars and deserve to honored as such;

however, jIvanmukti is explicitly denied by Sri Vaishnava

acharyas beginning with Ramanuja. The Jiyar may be considered

an exalted being and worshipped as one would worship God Himself;

however, there is no doubt that the Jiyar is not a mukta.

 

Once again, with no disrespect intended, I am nearly certain

that the Jiyar himself would say that he is not a mukta.

 

Mani