Belittling other faiths in our Pasurams?

[Guest guest]

Asmad Gurubhyo Namah: Asmad Parama Gurubhyo Namah:

Asmad Sarva Gurubhyo Namah:

Srimate Ramanujaaya Namah:

 

There is an English proverb which says "Fools rush in where Angels

fear to tread." I am not sure if I am doing exactly that by writing

this piece. However I decided to listen to my heart and decided to

write it. If this is a result of Bhasyakarar's inspiration, then

there is nothing regrettable about it. If it is the result of my use

of independent will then such writing has no value and I seek the

forgiveness of the group for having written it.

 

The Vedas are full of seeming inconsistencies. They have been

"breathed out" by Sriman Narayana in this way to eternally keep the

doubting Thomases in illusion. Our Acharyas who are beyond the

dwandva of this material world have explained in their various works

how these controversies are resolved. Through the Visishtadvaita

philosophy our Acharyas have reconciled the seemingly irreconcilable

Vedas which by itself has advaitic dwaitic concepts as well as

everything in between. It is with the understanding of this

reconciled Vedas that Swami Desikan has written that "All the Vedas

etc declare with one voice the Supremacy of the Lord of Sri over all

that exists".

 

If we accept that our Azhwars and Acharyas were not born in Samsara

but took birth to help the rest of us get out of Samsara then we also

have to accept that their works were inspired by the Lord Sriman

Narayana Himself and are therefore as good as the Lord's own

composition. Such compositions are therefore timeless and as valid

today as they were at the time they were composed. The 4,000

Pasurams especially are given equal authority with the Vedas. Then

the 4,000 Pasurams too have to be relevant at all times and not just

at the time they were written.

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam quotes Bhakta Prahalada as saying that "even

sages and rishis rejoices at the killing of snakes ...". I was told

by a learned Prapanna that snakes here means destruction of evil and

not jiva himsa as is implied in the shloka.

 

If this is used as an analogy in the case of Thondaripoddi Azhwar's

Pasuram, then cutting the heads of buddhists and Jains is not meant

literally. Note the use of the words "Our KIND Lord Vishnu..". What

is probably meant here is that gave the Buddhists and Jains the

association of pure Vaishnavas as a result of which they would have

accepted the Vaishnava path. This is a total change of mentality

from one of forgetfulness of Sriman Narayana to one of reawakening of

the jivatma's relationship with Sriman Narayana as His sesha and

dasa. This is as good as a head being cut off and new head replacing

it. Please note that our Azhwars never equated all religions.

Buddha preachings were athiestic and the Jains' as well as the

Buddhists' nirvana does not include eternal service to Sriman

Narayana which means that followers of such religions continue to

remain in illusion.

 

It is not clear from Badri's post which words of Siva are being

referred to by Amudanaar. Could it be the words of Adi Sankara (an

avatara of Siva) as misinterpreted by Yadava Prakasa? Or could it be

the practice of Saivism as followed by the king who blinded Mahapurna

and KoorathAzhwAn? A person not engaged in the service of Sriman

Narayana can be considered to be idle, just as an employee who does

personal work during office hours at the cost of neglecting office

work. Visishtadvaita philosophy explains that by nature we exists as

servants of Sriman Narayana and He owns us and therefore has a right

to demand that we do what He wants us to do.

 

Swami Desikan explains two forms of infedility in the Rahasya Traya

Sara: "It has been said , 'He who understands dharma prescribed in

the Vedas and the smritis with the help of arguments not opposed to

the spirit of the Vedas and Sastras -- he alone knows dharma, and not

others.' Those who have not understood dharma by the proper exercise

of reason will become rationalistic (and sceptical) and will

misinterpret the true meaning with specious arguments inconsistent

with the Vedas.

 

"The misinterpretation or denial is of two kinds -- that concerning

the glorious possessions (vibhutis) and that concerning the one who

possesses these glories. That concerning the One who possesses the

glories consists in denying the existence of the Supreme Ruler, the

Lord of Lakshmi, or declaring some other deity as the Supreme Ruler

and relegating the real Supreme Ruler to the category of His

possessions (vibhuti). The misconception or misinterpretation

concerning the glories consists in this:- denying the existence of

these glories (or objects created by God) or considering these

vibhutis as existing but as independent of the Lord by denying their

relationship to Him, or declaring that they are dependent on oneself

or others."

 

Swami Desikan in this instance was referring to Buddhists and

followers of Kanada but this can very well be extended to Saivism,

since Swami Desikan elaborates in other chapters why Brahma and Rudra

are no more than Jivatmas. From the Visisthadvaita point of view

therefore, Badri's description of Amudanaar's statement as offensive,

and blatantly false is incorrect.

 

No disrespect is meant here for the Saiva saints. Sri Krishna says

in the Geeta "In which ever deity you worship, I will make your faith

strong in that deity". It is possible that the Saiva saints came to

this earth as their service to Narayana to fulfil the above verse,

just as the Yadava army though surrendered to Krishna had to fight on

the side of the Kauravas. It is not for me to judge who is serving

Narayana and who is not. All that is stated here is that for one who

has been struck with the disease called Samsara or forgetfulness of

one's relationship with Sriman Narayana worship of all other deities

does not provide the cure for this disease.

 

Just as a prisoner hoping for parole resorts to good conduct and

keeps away from fellow prisoners who indulge in bad conduct,

similarly a Prapanna resorts to devotees of Sriman Narayana for

spiritual association and interacts with others only to the extent

necessary as a result of work or family or other ties.

 

Sri Ramanuja Dasosmi.

 

Jaganath.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 20 Mar 96 23:49:26 UT Ramadas said:

>

>If this is used as an analogy in the case of Thondaripoddi Azhwar's

>Pasuram, then cutting the heads of buddhists and Jains is not meant

>literally. Note the use of the words "Our KIND Lord Vishnu..". What

>is probably meant here is that gave the Buddhists and Jains the

>association of pure Vaishnavas as a result of which they would have

>accepted the Vaishnava path.''

>

>Here we come to something that sounds nice and comfortable, but!!!!

 

 

I would like to submit that Sri Vaishnavas have never

claimed that Thondaradippodi Azhvaar used these words

literally. To my knowledge neither the aazhvaar, nor

any Sri Vaishnava went around cutting the heads of

Jains and Bhuddists, literally!

 

 

-- pd

[Guest guest]

Shree Jaganath wrote:

''The Srimad Bhagavatam quotes Bhakta Prahalada as saying that "even

sages and rishis rejoices at the killing of snakes ...". I was told

by a learned Prapanna that snakes here means destruction of evil and

not jiva himsa as is implied in the shloka.

 

If this is used as an analogy in the case of Thondaripoddi Azhwar's

Pasuram, then cutting the heads of buddhists and Jains is not meant

literally. Note the use of the words "Our KIND Lord Vishnu..". What

is probably meant here is that gave the Buddhists and Jains the

association of pure Vaishnavas as a result of which they would have

accepted the Vaishnava path.''

 

Here we come to something that sounds nice and comfortable, but!!!!

 

In both cases, the learned Prapanna and Jaganath have both placed their own

interpretation onto the subject matter under discussion. Prhahlada said 'even

sages and rishis rejoices at the killing of snakes' but then this is changed

to an implication to what was actually said. In the same way, what was said in

connection with cutting off heads of Buddhists and Jains is now changed to

suit the philosophy of the commentator.

 

This is the type of thing I was referring to when I mentioned the rewriting of

the Vedas to suit the political correctness of today. If we are going to go

around saying ''well, in actual fact, this is what is implied'' whenever we

read something that does not agree with our way of thinking, then why do we

not just sit down and rewrite the ancient scriptures so that they say what we

want them to say?

 

Kindest regards

Ramadas