Some solutions for Sri.Srikanth's query

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sampath Rengarajan and other Bhagavathas,

 

Dear Sri Sampath, thanks a lot for your patient reply. I am sure that you

speak with the authority of scriptures and our Poorvacharyaas. In contrast,

much of what i have to say is based on my reflections on what have been

uttered by Mahaans, what i have read, and also on my personal expreiences.

 

Sri Sampath wrote:-

>>> If Lord Sriman narayana has

>>desired that the varnasara darmam has to be dumped or changed his messengers

>>would have done so.

>>Can the fact of many beings not having attained the Lotus Feet of the Lord

>>be taken as evidence that the Lord has not desired it?

 

[...]

>theory of non linearity to this. Let me submit my small inference here. The

>fact is such that many of the souls *here*, have taken birth to serve sriman

>narayana in this boolOgam.

 

But does the Lord _need_ our services? I rather think the _jeevas_ need

Him to need our services!! Please, if i may say so, herein lies part of the

said non-linearity!

>>Surely not!! The fact

>>that some situation is not otherwise than it is is not necessarily evidence

>>that the Supreme, in His infinite patience, did not desire it otherwise.

>If this is implied to dumping varnasara darmam, all i had to say is that my

>achaaryaaLs can never be wrong.

 

Actually, i am sorry, i didn't mean anything specific. I only wished to point

out that an absence of direct evidence could perhaps not be taken as evidence

of absence.

 

Furthermore, our dharma consists of a ritualistic/social part and of a deep

philosophical part. The ritualistic and social aspects have a temporal scope.

But it is the latter that allows one to refresh the soul thru His Name and

Form, and guide it greater perfection, and gives one Peace of mind.

>I agree that i am very ignorant as compared to many other baagwathaaLS who are

>reading poorvaachaaryaaLS work throughly.

 

I am considerably unread. If anything in what i have said is quite gross,

please treat it as my personal opinion, formed from a wrong understanding

of our scriptures.

>> No, only that the nature of the relationship of the jeevas to the Brahman

is >> mysterious, and the logic that determines many events of the jeeva's life

is >> of "non-linear" type!!

>The realtionship is mysterious to many who are not aware of poorvaachaaryaaLS

>works (that narrate this relationship) and including those who are otherwise

>speculating and thinking that they can attempt to *define* this relationship

>with the material (math) knowledge they have gained.

 

It is recorded in YOga-Vaasishtam, that when Sri Rama asked Sage Vasishta,

" Why has this imperfect world come out of the perfect Brahman ?", Muni

answered rather obliquely, "Oh Rama, in the mind of a pure Jnaani, such a query

does not arise" !! Even Vasishta deemed it best to leave unsaid the nature of

that Truth to Rama Himself.

 

I try to answer this question by reminding myself that the very enquiry that

i make is made thru His faculty as crystallized in me, as also in everyone.

Thus, when one enquires about Him, it is He who thru the much impoverished

agency of human thought is enquiring Himself. When one sees something, it is

He who thru the much impoverished agency of human sight is seeing Himself as

manifested as this world.... Thus at all times, at all places, the Brahman

alone acts on Himself. This is just like a non-linear field (eg., gravitation)

that is non-linear by virtue of acting on itself. Analogously, the Brahmic

field, too, acts of, by and for Itself!! Thus, the actions of Sriman

Narayana may not always lend themselves to easy interprettation in the

"linear" worldview of the jeevas!

 

Your personal opinion/criticism, or ones from

our Scriptures that you would find it apt to quote in this regard would be

much welcome, for they can only serve to remove my ignorance!

>If the knowledge is a

>(muth knowledge (meaning that the knowledge is gained from achaaryaaLS muth

>schools) it may help. For a surrendered soul it (this realtionship) is not

>that complicated.

 

I very much agree with u. Acutally, part of the mystery lies in its

simplicity, as it seems to me!

>As an aside I want to make *one more* "solution" for your "non-linear" problem.

>If it is not *very* nonlinear then please try piecewise linear approach by

>making it into "several pieces" of "linear type".

 

Your clever extension of the analogy is very illustrative. Perhaps it is not

wasteful to draw scientific analogies, after all!! But, please allow me to

remark that the atomized mind of the individual jeevas might actually already

be implementing the solution you propose. Unable to grasp the Truth about Him

in its entirety, the restricted mind of the jeeva tries to limit the

illimitable Supreme, makes "piece-wise linear" what is perhaps afterall a

"non-linear whole", etc.

>Sri Ranganaayikaa samethra sri Ranganatha swami paadhukE charaNam

>Sampath Rengarajan

 

HARI OM

Srikanth

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sampath,

 

I have to admit that some of what i said were based on my personal reflections

on matters pertaining to Bhagawad vishayam. True, the problem of terminology

is hardly central to actual practice. It is at most a question of labeling

differently, according to one's personal predispositions, the kalyaana gunaas

of the Supreme. Perhaps u agree with me. Please do not feel hurt by some of

the opinions i had expressed. I do hope i have not offended the feelings of

any other Bhagavathas.

>Sri Sri Ranganaayikaa samEthara Sri ranganaatha swami paadhukE charaNam

>Sampath Rengarajan

 

Thanks a lot.

HARI OM

Srikanth

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Srikanth,

 

I really donot want to get into another tenkalai vadakali dialogue in this

forum. We have different sources to validate our points. My point of views are

derived from listening to our acharyaaLS and quotes from srimad Rahasya trya

saaram. You have quoted from Sri Ramayanam. Nammaazwaar is adjudged as the one

whose paasurams cannot be matched by anyother literatures including

Sriramayanam and all combined. This is not told by me but by Swami Desikan in

"kaasiniyan maniyanathithum" in "amirtha ranchani". Nammazwaar himself has

delivered saying that "Anallan pennallan" and "avaravar". Aftr reading

nammaazwaar, i donot need to validate anything from other literatures which are

next only to thiruvaaymozhi. By the way RTS has its basis *mostly* from

thiruvaaymozhi and azhwaar's arulichacheyal only. Hence It is futile to argue

that since one is right as quoted from Sriramyanam and the other is then worng.

When you have argued that it is "non linear" i simply said that it need not be

that complicated. Other than that i donot want to argue if you must always see

it as non linear. It still is not and never be nonlinear to me from where I

come. There are ample sources to charectrise the jivan/param relationship.

According to many srivaishnavas, the more logics one can bring in, the style

of arguments reflect the more of advaithin school of arguments. But i think

even logic must be permitted if one has gto extend the theory of

poorvaacharaayar to convey certian message. This is what i was told as "allowed

to do in my research". In addition i am also said that one must approach this

as a pure service to lord and not for anyother purpose. I am of opinion that I

shouldnot indulge in attempting to validate these literatures that are

deleivered by Lord's amsams (eg Swami Desikan). I very much like to learn from

many tenkalai scholars in this group and also by reading aruLicheyal rahasyam

of Sri ManavaaLa maamunigaL. (By the way I am currently re-reading it).

Perhapas you also may want to read Srimad Rahasy trya saaram sometime in

addition to the vast literature you are already reading. I would like to

concede here that i donot want to draw a conclusion whether you are right and i

am wrong. What is started as a "math fun" is heading to this way as i

understand from the post lately. It is not required of me to prove that i am

right even when i am challenged. That gives in to ego. Let us both sumbit to

the Lord that we served the Lord by writing with two different views and not

really worry as to whether one is right or wrong. The facts stated by me are

accepted almost by all my friends who are learned scholars and have read RTS.

Iam sure the points quoted by you are accepted by as many others as well. It is

my humble opinion that it is unworthy to dialogue anything that will end up in

unfortunate misunderstanding between the two kalais. If i can contribute to

their unity i will dialogue and if my writings drags us into another conflict i

will take the lead to say that i quit. We can probably dialogue through private

mail if you are intersted so that we need not be the reason for yet another

conflict. At this juncture, I submit that the view point of both sides (ie t

and v kalais) are correct in their perspective as i had always contended. Swami

deiskan's "nyaasa thilakam" and "charama slOka surrukku" clearly states the

same and descirbes as to why one must follow either of the path. Agian I am

saying this as a source for all my thenkalai friends to look into for common

understanding. Please accept my apologies if i have hurt your or anyother

feelings in this net. For sometime i am going to remain a spectator by asking

someone to forward the mails to my home address and learn from the good

postings of yours and others as well. Please put this brief exchange behind,

and come forward to write more from what you have read and I will look forward

to learning from the same.

 

Sri Sri Ranganaayikaa samEthara Sri ranganaatha swami paadhukE charaNam

Sampath Rengarajan