Bhakti

[Guest guest]

Dear Sahridayas,

I have been reading all the posts with avid interest but this is my first

contribution. I have made comparative studies in Vaishnavism and Buddhism and

found deep gratification in both, which appear as two sides of the same coin,

Buddha being called Narayana and Kalanthaka (conquoror of kala), both being

epithets of Vishnu as well. Having come from a tradition which celebrates the

Divyaprabandham, I have asked many Bhaktas this question but have felt the

answers somehow unconvincing. I would like to know from the erudite minds of

this forum what in their opinion is Unconditional love. What they think

Saranagati truly means in an everyday mundane context...

Meanwhile, here's something I would like to share amongst the votaries..

Love Offering

 

 

Flowers and fruits, milk, honey and incense,

Rice cakes and candles, sweet songs and chanting,

Sandal and camphor to fill Thee with fragrance;

All these and more, sense-tingling offering.

 

Indeed! what can I offer Thee when I am Thine?

How can I offer Thee when nothing is mine?

When Thou dwellest in mine heart pristine,

Can I be anything but Thy Sunshine?

 

Yet, Hrishikesha ! why do I feel the way I do?

Sense controller! Dost Thou feel that way too?

Oh tell me pray, why do I see stars in my tears?

Why do I see my heart’s murmur as Thy fears?

 

When t’is Thy body I wear and Thy soul I bear,

T’is then Thee that suffers, through my pain.

So, what on earth can I truly offer Thee?

No pain, no gain; not even a sand grain!

Radhika Srinivasan

you can Email me at rsrin

 

Adiyen daasi

[Guest guest]

At 07:04 AM 7/28/1998 -0400, Radhika Srinivasan (RSrin) wrote:

>Dear Sahridayas,

>..... I have made comparative studies in Vaishnavism and Buddhism and

>found deep gratification in both, which appear as two sides of the same coin,

>Buddha being called Narayana and Kalanthaka (conquoror of kala), both being

 

 

This note is not written in disapproval (I am not qualified to

approve or disapproval), but only to share a small peace of

information that may be relevant and many I am sure

already know.

 

Sri Vaishnavas do consider Buddha an incarnation of Lord Vishnu,

but of a contrarian kind. The Lord came to the world as Buddha to

spread lies among asuras in order to mislead them.

 

Our Azhvaars have severely criticized Buddhism, among other religions

such as Samanam and Saivam. One Azhvaar goes to the extent of

saying that he will make it his duty to cut off their heads.

 

If this note causes any hurt please accept my apologies.

 

 

-- adiyEn raamanuja dhaasan

[Guest guest]

----------

> Parthasarati Dileepan <Dileepan

> bhakti

> Re: Bhakti

> Tuesday, July 28, 1998 2:04 PM

>

>

> Sri Vaishnavas do consider Buddha an incarnation of Lord Vishnu,

> but of a contrarian kind. The Lord came to the world as Buddha to

> spread lies among asuras in order to mislead them.

>

 

It is my understanding from hearing Sri Tridandi Jeear Swamy's discourses

on the same subject that while there was indeed a BuddhAvatharan who came

to mislead the asurans with false teachings, this Buddha was not the same

Buddha as Siddhartha. So, the Buddha of Buddhism is not an avAtharan of

Vishnu. Nonetheless - and with no personal comments against the ideas

presented by Smt Radhika - as Sri Dileepan has stated, SriVaishnavam is

strongly opposed to many of Buddhism's views, and its achAryans have very

clear and logical reasons for this opposition.

 

The reason for such a strong conviction on the parts of ourselves, and more

importantly, our AchAryans and AzhwArs on such religions as Buddhism can

perhaps be answered somewhat by attempting to address Smt Radhika's

question:

>I would like to know from the erudite minds of

>this forum what in their opinion is Unconditional love. What they think

>Saranagati truly means in an everyday mundane context...

 

While Smt Radhika intended to get answers from the erudite in this forum, I

hope she will not mind if a novice pitches in.

 

The details of what prapatti is and what one undergoes in the process

varies between the kalais, and is also the subject of much discussion in

the Bhakti Archives, so I will not address it here. However, I presented a

similar question regarding the life of a prapanna to Sri Tridandi Jeear

Swamy during the recent Seminar on SriVaishnavam that took place here in

Denver. The following is a very crude and rudimentary synopsis of what he

has taught me:

 

Irrespective of what approach one takes in performing prapatti, the end

result is a psychological transformation in the individual such that he/she

will recognize Sriman Narayana alone as the only source of protection and

salvation, and will recognize his/her true nature as the eternal loving

servant of the Lord. This two-fold realization will invoke in the prapanna

a desire to serve the Lord and His devotees to the best of his/her

abilities. Such a servitude can best be expressed through adherence to the

Sastras, complimented by the Prabhandam, as they are the best sources of

information regarding the Lord and the ways to worship Him correctly.

Counterbalancing this emotional desire to serve is a deep sense of

humility, in which the individual knows that his/her human failings really

make him/her totally unqualified to serve Him, and that our simple rituals

and offerings of love are only accepted by Him because of His wondrous Love

for us.

 

What changes on mundane levels? Sri Jeear Swamy said that really nothing

needs to change. We still must maintain our responsibilities to our jobs,

our friends, and our family. But, what does change is our attitude, our

mood, as we begin to see all aspects of our lives as sacred.

 

Since Buddhism does not recognize the validity of sAstram, and hence does

not recognize the supremacy of Sriman Narayana and our subservience to Him,

our AchAryans and AzhwArs firmly oppose it.

 

Please forgive me for any errors in the above, as they are due to my own

ignorance.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

 

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathas,

adiyEnin paNivAna namaskAram.

 

This is with regard to the recent post reply by Sri Dileepan.

> such as Samanam and Saivam. One Azhvaar goes to the extent of

> saying that he will make it his duty to cut off their heads.

>

> If this note causes any hurt please accept my apologies.

 

Is this not preaching intolerance towards other darmas and isn't adorning

such ideas fundamentalism? What difference lies here between this doctrine

and that of today's islamic countries? Sri Dileepan, pls. don't put such

quotes for others to read (others here includes Sri Vaishnavas). These kind

of posts more cause sympathy than they hurt. Of what use is asking and

accepting apologies when the Truth itself is ignored!

Though the author has agreed his incapacity in approving and disapproving

the doctrine proposed by the original author of the subject post "Bhakti",

I would like to say a few words here: We should keep in mind that we don't

even have deserving authority to chide the pAda rENu of the holy saints of

other darmas. It is not justified admiring any saint who intends to cause

violence to or severely criticizes followers of other darmas. Won't it only

mean that he hasn't understood the concept of darma etal. in the purest form?

If that saint gives so much importance to his samayam that he is forced to

criticise and go the extent that he would even kill the followers of an

anniya darma, it is really a pitiable state that he didn't only forget his

goal but also trespassed other's path to the same goal. [ He is as bad a sinner

as the Chola king who plucked the eyes of a disciple of Srimad Ramanuja for

worshipping Narayana. ]

 

-

thAn thamadhu aRatthil ozhugin

piRa sindhanai koLLAr?

 

uNmai gna~nam thOnRin nAnavarivar

enum vERRumai ninayAr.

 

avarE iRaivan thoNdar avarE

adiyavar AvAr.

-

 

It's so beautiful and encouraging that in the end, after all this

turmoil of thoughts and confusions the Truth prevails in all its glory

just the same way as the sUrya oLi kraNangaL and the Supreme Narayana

Brahman. That's His decree.

 

adiyEn, uNmai uNarndhOr adipodi,

 

chandrasekaran.

[Guest guest]

shrii. Parthasarati Dileepan writes:

|

| At 07:04 AM 7/28/1998 -0400, Radhika Srinivasan (RSrin) wrote:

| >Dear Sahridayas,

| >..... I have made comparative studies in Vaishnavism and Buddhism and

| >found deep gratification in both, which appear as two sides of the same coin,

| >Buddha being called Narayana and Kalanthaka (conquoror of kala), both being

|

|

| This note is not written in disapproval (I am not qualified to

| approve or disapproval), but only to share a small peace of

| information that may be relevant and many I am sure

| already know.

|

| Sri Vaishnavas do consider Buddha an incarnation of Lord Vishnu,

| but of a contrarian kind. The Lord came to the world as Buddha to

| spread lies among asuras in order to mislead them.

 

Interesting! shrii S.M. Srinivasa Chari in his book, "Vaisnavism" says:

 

" See Vedaanta deshika's Dashaavataara stotra.

The ten avataara-s generally acknowledged by the Vaishhnava-s, do not

include the Buddhaavataara. Buddha, as the founder of Buddhism in vogue,

is not an avataara of VishhNu. If some later PuraaNas-s speak of him

as an avataara, it is regarded by the VaishhNava-s as an interpolation."

[ page 230. Note# 48]

 

Would members please comment ?

 

|

| Our Azhvaars have severely criticized Buddhism, among other religions

| such as Samanam and Saivam. One Azhvaar goes to the extent of

| saying that he will make it his duty to cut off their heads.

 

Could reference be provided from divya-prabhandam?

 

Thanks,

 

- Ram

 

|

| If this note causes any hurt please accept my apologies.

|

|

| -- adiyEn raamanuja dhaasan

|

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sadagopan,

 

May I at the very outset say how touched I am with your detailed response to

my poem written on impulse? I am extremely grateful to you for highlighting

the difference between Advaita and Sri Vaishnava philosophy, which I found

very enlightening.But it is not true that Pt5. The Buddhists believe in

becoming and not being. Zen Buddhism in particular emphasizes on BEing, since

when you Become, you really get back to the state of Being.., quite like

Advaita.

All I can say is my own experience has shown me that it is only when you get

out of your own cloistered and conditioned beliefs, shake off the cobwebs that

grow with time and taste a whiff of fresh air of other belief systems that you

come back to your own fold more rejuvenated, more enlightened, without the

need for paramada khandana. .. my excursions into the Buddhist Path has taught

me that Buddhism has a lot to offer us devotees in its ethical simplicity, ie.

the 8fold path. We Hindus tend to lead our lives in compartments, turn very

devout at the sannadhi, talk complexly exciting philosophy during satsangs and

practice questionable ways in our personal lives.. no judgment here, only a

prodding so we think...this has helped me to integrate practice with my Path.

While, when I deal with the heights of philosophy, I find Buddhism very

wanting, not being able to match the philosophical cogencies of Advaita as

propounded by Adi Sankara and Sri Ramana. Yet, when it comes to bhakti and

saranagati, I see Sri Ramanuja's way so appealing that words, acts, thoughts

all melt into tears, esplly when I sing Periyaalvaar's pasurams... Integration

of all these have not been problematic for me, although I know for many, it

may pose serious contradictions.

My own question however, regarding Unconditional Love is more at practical

level rather than philosophical. Is unconditional love blind? Can we

differentiate between the act and the person committing the act in

unconditional love? Thank you..