Prapathi and Adhikaris

[Guest guest]

The view points expressed recently about the need to keep secret any

references to thirumantram, dwayam or the charama slokam clearly reflect a

dichotomy in view points of certain members. At some point such discussions

become moot when some prapannas in this group do not accept pramaaNa from

such authoritative sources as Sri Vachana BhushaNam or Sri MaNavALa

MaamunigaL. However, my perception of this situation based on my limited

learning (through an AchArya as well as understanding stemming from varied

reading of our philosophy) can be summarized as follows:

 

1. There can't be and ought not be any restriction in simply chanting the

Thirumantram or dwayam or any of the sacred mantras, let alone representing

on the net within this group of bhAgavathAs (It would be wrong to even

surmise that some of the prapannas on this list have evil designs or are

insincere; such guesswork clearly falls outside the scope of this forum; we

are not here to wonder or examine credintials of the prapannas assembled

here.) In any case, as Sri Mohan Sagar points out, it would be callow to

restrict mere usage here whilst people elsewhere will utilize the

thirumantram for chanting or meditation (and no one can/should stop this).

 

2. The rahasyArthas (deeper meanings) are available only through a

qualified Acharya. In any case, this discussion is not about the

rahasyArthas. They are about simply stating the lords name, such as

Srimathe nArAyaNAya namahA. In any case, no ShishyA privy to the

rahasyartha (e.g., the fact that the thirumantram contains an exposition of

the jivathma/paramAthma sambhandham) would want to discuss it here since it

would be of little relevance to an audience of varied levels of

learning/understanding of several critical philosophical issues required for

comprehending the rahasyArthas. So, while Sri Kalale's statement that the

rahasyArthas have to be protected is correct, by their very nature, they

are. These are not issues that can be comprehended unless an ardent shisya

with shraddha and vishayAsakthi can perform kainkaryA at the feet of an

AchArya.

 

Sri Kalale writes

> in short, he did all he could to wipe out my mahavishwasa in prapatti

> Thanks to our Acharyas he did not succeed. In short, it is better not to get

> entangled with such folks and not to discuss issues such as this with such

> folks

 

Sri VaishNava siddhantam has drawn people from all walks and hues of life

because of its inherent simplicity and beauty, with a strong foundation

built on rationale. It is those who doubt their own convictions that will

fear interaction with others on such issues. It would be redundant to say

that Our pooravacharyas have already given us the essence of shruthi and the

upanishads in an easily accessible form and have laid out a rational basis

for interpreting the relationship between Man and Nature. Given this wealth

(from our poorvacharyas) that has been bequeathed to us, such discussions

(of the nature pursued on this mailing list) can only strengthen our

understanding and should never instigate fears of mis-use from those who

don't comprehend. Rather, I would believe that all those who do not accept

the validity of visishtadwaitha philosophy would do so if exposed to the

light of true knowledge provided by our pooravacharyas. If open-minded

inquiry can be met by rationale underscored with kindness, it can provide a

firm foundation for true faith and understanding.

 

Aazhwaar Emberumaanaar Jeeyar Desikar ThiruvadigaLe SharaNam

 

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

The issue seems to me is not merely with thirumantram,

but rather, the easy availability of religious material,

especially on the internet. Consider the following.

 

Suppose I print out the bhakti-digest, including

all the discussions on the thirmantrams, and I

read it with all earnestness. Upon finishing

reading the documents, having no further use of

it, I dispose it in the trash can. Am I committing

a sin? After all, I can't imagine throwing away

my stotram books in the trash can. (How many

households do you know in India who keep calendars

from time immemorial because they have pictures

of various deities and thus, cannot be disposed

easily?)

 

Suppose I give a copy of the Sri Bhasya, or even

the bhakti-digest, to a Western friend interested in

Indian philosophy. He reads the book in the bathroom

(as I have seen many Christian friends keep a copy of Holy

Bible in the bathroom, and as I have inquired in

the past with informed Christian friends, there is

nothing religously wrong with this practice). If the

bathroom analogy is too far-fetched, consider another

scenario in which my friend eats chicken with his hand,

wipes it with paper towel, and then proceeds to read

the book, wearing his shoes. Is my friend committing sin?

Or does the sin fall on me, for giving the book to this

fellow without properly educating him of its usage?

 

One can apply similar arguments to the easy availability

of Sri Vaishnava literature on the internet. One need

not be malicious to "misuse" the literature.

 

Of course, many of you might feel that the word "sin"

is inappropriate to describe the above offences. I use it

only for the lack of better word. However, I think we would

all agree, that those brought up in traditional South Indian

Sri Vaishanava households, especially our Acharayas, be it

Vadagalai or Tengalai, would not be very happy to see religious

inquiry in any and every shape, even if it was done in humility

and in an earnest desire to understand the Ultimate.

 

sk

[Guest guest]

At 10:00 PM 10/10/96 -0500, Sri Sridhar Srinivasan wrote:

 

At some point such discussions

>become moot when some prapannas in this group do not accept pramaaNa from

>such authoritative sources as Sri Vachana BhushaNam or Sri MaNavALa

>MaamunigaL.

 

I would like to state my view on this just to make it clear. I have not

read Sri Vachana Bhusana (I have a copy of it (kannada) from I think Jaggu

swamigal of Bangalore). Neither have I read the commentary by Sri MaNavaLa

Maamunigal. I think, as Sri Vedantadesika puts it, there is a minor issue of

controversy between the two schools. I, many a time, feel that there is a

minor controversy between Sri Sankaracharya and Sri Ramanujacharya

themselves : ie. Mayavada and Nirguna Brahmavada which also could be

explained away as two ways of viewing the prasthana trayas. Compared to the

controversy between Advaita and visistadvaita, the controversy between

vadagalai and tengalai traditions and thought are insignificant. Personally

I will not be able to digest the powerful works such as Rahasyatraya Sara

and Mumukshuppadi in this lifetime to my satisfaction. The truths therein

are difficult to understand, let alone to evaluate. Like many others, I have

been brought up in a tradition and instinctively, have acquired attachment

to it; However, I respect both traditions and in fact, have trouble

isolating the real difference between them in concept. Having said this,

whatever ideas or arguments I put forth regarding these traditions or

Advaita or Dwaita, basically have to be considered as the signs of my effort

in understanding them rather then evaluating any of these systems. In fact,

I would love to sit down under gurus like Bhuvarahar Swamy of Bangalore or

any other tengalai stawart and learn the view points of Sri Pillai

Lokarcharyar and Sri Manavala maamunigal. In fact my favorite God is "Sri

LakshmiNrisimha" and one of my favorite stotras on Nrisimhar is

 

"Sri mada kalanka paripoorna shashikoti

shreedhara manohara satapatala kaanta

paalaya kripaalaya bhavaambudi nimagnam

daitya varakala Narasimha Narasimha

 

....... and eight other wonderful rhythmic octets by Sri Sundara Jaamaathru

Muni who is I think, Sri Manavala maamuni himself.

 

I should add that I still have doubts that whether it is true that the

tengalai acharyas support unlimited and un-controlled dissemination of

rahasyamantras on all possible media like the hare krishna mantra (which, by

the way, is a different issue, since the chaitanya school's viewpoint itself

is very different).

>1. There can't be and ought not be any restriction in simply chanting the

>Thirumantram or dwayam or any of the sacred mantras, let alone representing

>on the net within this group of bhAgavathAs (It would be wrong to even

>surmise that some of the prapannas on this list have evil designs or are

>insincere; such guesswork clearly falls outside the scope of this forum; we

>are not here to wonder or examine credintials of the prapannas assembled

>here.) In any case, as Sri Mohan Sagar points out, it would be callow to

>restrict mere usage here whilst people elsewhere will utilize the

>thirumantram for chanting or meditation (and no one can/should stop this).

 

There is no real restriction for any caste, creed or gender in reciting

these mantras. These mantras if taught by an acharya can be repeated /

meditated on in whatever form that was given. But to publish them on the

network is a different issue altogether, which, I will comment on in the

next section of this email.

 

>2. The rahasyArthas (deeper meanings) are available only through a

>qualified Acharya. In any case, this discussion is not about the

>rahasyArthas. They are about simply stating the lords name, such as

>Srimathe nArAyaNAya namahA. In any case, no ShishyA privy to the

>rahasyartha (e.g., the fact that the thirumantram contains an exposition of

>the jivathma/paramAthma sambhandham) would want to discuss it here since it

>would be of little relevance to an audience of varied levels of

>learning/understanding of several critical philosophical issues required for

>comprehending the rahasyArthas. So, while Sri Kalale's statement that the

>rahasyArthas have to be protected is correct, by their very nature, they

>are. These are not issues that can be comprehended unless an ardent shisya

>with shraddha and vishayAsakthi can perform kainkaryA at the feet of an

>AchArya.

 

When rahasyarthas are to be left to an acharya-sishya's privacy, why not

leave the rahasya mantras themselves, which are closely associated with the

mantra-arthas, like how sri M.K sudarshan clearly explains in his email, to

the privacy of such a relationship or in daily anusandhanams of initiated

individuals? By the way our Lord narayana has thousands of names; choose

those 997 or more of them which are different from rahasya mantras and still

gain the bliss of chanting the names of the lord on email. Even among the

three, there is no harm if just parts of them are isolated and published;

but why not spare the whole mantras and their arthas to the acharya sishya

relationship. In fact our acharyas before they take up sannyasa, under go a

mantropadesham called "preshya mantopadesam" to get qualified to teach

others the rahasya mantras. To my knowledge, none of us have this preshya

mantropadesa. Moreover, why insist on these mantras when even according to

your own posting, in the very same granthas (Mumukshuppadi) the "mantram

yatnena gopayet" rule is mentioned? In fact this security will help to

protect the tradition of people taking the trouble to fly back to India and

resort to an acharya to get samashrayana & Bharanyasa. Professor Vasudha

Narayan's views are well taken. There is no harm in encouraging and

enlightening each of us on the network with ideas pertaining to our

traditions and shastras; In fact, If I remember well, long time back, when

Mani started the group, this essentially was the basis for it. Even if

anyone asks about seriously knowing the rahasyarthas, others in the network

who know, can give out the meanings of the rahasyas personally on an

one-to-one basis with the suggestion that "I can tell you as much as I know;

it may be incomplete or even erroneous; Please confirm these issues with an

acharya back home when you get a chance".

 

Coming to the point of prof. Vasudha Narayan's view quoted in my words : "

Why is there this question today, when great people like Uttamoor Swamy and

many others published rahasyas as well as their meanings in books, and the

vedas were written down long time back", I feel that without written books

from those authoritative folks, nowadays it is difficult for many people to

understand our idealogies. If those scholars did not write the books it

would have been impossible for layfolk like me to know that these mantras

existed. These books, however should be used as reference material and

studied under an acharya, preferably face to face. The issue of people on

the network writing "rahasya mantras" in lieu of their signature is carrying

this a bit too far.

**********************

>Sri Kalale writes

>> in short, he did all he could to wipe out my mahavishwasa in prapatti

>> Thanks to our Acharyas he did not succeed. In short, it is better not to get

>> entangled with such folks and not to discuss issues such as this with such

>> folks

>

>Sri VaishNava siddhantam has drawn people from all walks and hues of life

>because of its inherent simplicity and beauty, with a strong foundation

>built on rationale. It is those who doubt their own convictions that will

>fear interaction with others on such issues.

 

It is not really correct to deduce that the only possibility is that a

person is afraid to lose allegiance to or trust in his tradition and hence

does not want to interact with others on controversial issues. It can also

be due to one's restraint not to interact or rather waste their time with

folks knowingly, who may have lukewarm interest in the subject or who may

never agree with the ideas however hard one may try. Moreover, our shastras

state "na aprishtaha kasya chit bruyaat". One should not start saying

scriptural truths when nobody asked for it. In fact in my experience I have

seen that people who anxiously engage in inter-scholastic battles (for

example me!) are the ones who are not mature enough to gain the restraint to

stop messing around when unnecessary.

 

 

Finally, coming to Sri Mohan Sagar's view on an Advaitic person's meditation

congregation with thirumantra, the situation and context of it is different

than the importance given by visistadvaita tradition.

 

As Vidya Sankar mentioned a while back, in North India Women learn and

preach vedas. This is sort of against dharmashastras, even though the

Janaka-Women Saint's Upanishadic story cites an exception. If one wants to

abide by dharmashastras one have to accept its rules and regulations. If one

wants to defy them, well, what can be said, Go ahead and make your day!. I

personally, would not like to transgress dharmashastras, even though I do it

unwillingly everyday (in many ways). Lord Narayana's words state ; shruti

smrithir mamaivajna yastaam ullanghya tishtate. ajnachedi mama drohi

madbhaktopi na vaishnava - which means, the shrutis and smritis are my

(narayana's) own

orders. Who defies them is not a vaishnava even though he is a devotee of mine!

 

Why get into deeper trouble, when I am already neck deep in it?.

 

Shrimathe Srivan Satagopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya Namaha.

 

Dasan Krishna Kalale

Krishna Kalale

619-658-5612 (phone)

619-658-2115 (fax)