Guest guest Posted March 19, 1999 Report Share Posted March 19, 1999 On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 Sudarshan Madabhushi wrote: > Dear bhAgavatOttamA-s, > > As inveterate SriVaishnavites not all of us may be inclined to agree > with the philosophy of Sri Sankara 'bhagavatpAda' but his poetry is an > altogether different matter. Is it so? > > Sankara's Sanskrit poetry is a magnificent blend of lofty thought and > intense feeling. His hymns like the famous "bhaja-gOvindam" and > "soundarya-lahari" indeed stir the mood of thoughtful "bhakti" in both > SriVaishnava and non-SriVaishnava reader alike. the thing is that paramaikAntins(or even a person trying to imitate them) never enjoys stOtras on anya dEvatAs, how beautiful they may be. There is one blasphemous SlOka in "soundaryalaharI" which makes the so called soundaryalaharI a "durgandhakUpam" and one of the ugliest works in sanskrit.that SlOka does not deserve to be mentioned in this great list where bhAgavatas talk to each other about the Vaibhavam of purushOttaman pundarIkAkshan vEngadavan emberumAn Sriyahpati SrIranganAthan(bOdhayantah parasparam) and enlighten people like me (upadEkshyanti jnAnam). I am very sorry to know that SrI VaishNavas like Smt Mani Krishnaswami sang this stOtram and one T R Srinivasa Iyengar wrote a commentary on it. The only option left for a SrI VaishNava who is all in praise for -------------------------------- Sankara's stOtras on PerumAL is to assume that Sankara had not written ----- this SlOka and it was a later inclusion. ---- I plead BhAgavatas not to discuss it further in this forum. lakshmI narasimha charaNau SaraNam prapadyE dAsan V.Srimahavishnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 1999 Report Share Posted March 19, 1999 Sri Srimahavishnu wrote: > There is one blasphemous SlOka in "soundaryalaharI" which makes the so > called soundaryalaharI a "durgandhakUpam" and one of the ugliest > works in sanskrit.that SlOka does not deserve to > be mentioned in this great list ... Please DO cite this sloka. An assertion needs to be backed up by evidence. I am not denying what you are saying is true; I just do not know. Now that you have made this assertion, I am sure many of us are curious as to what this sloka is. I also find it unnecessary to call a work "ugly" because *we* doctrinally disagree with it. Further, disagreeing with a poem on a religious basis should not make us incapable of appreciating it on a purely poetic or rhythmic level. Regarding Sankara's authorship of this stotra: Mere unwillingness on our part to accept that Sankara could praise other deities while at the same time praise Vishnu should not be the basis for concluding that Sankara did not author this stotra. Recall that Sankara's is not a Sri Vaishnava, not a paramaikAnti by our definition, and certainly not a Visishtadvaitin; his philosophy is very different and accepts various deities as "signposts" to the Absolute. While I find his philosophy illogical and unsatisfying, I see no need to impose my belief system on him. There is a tendency to exalt Vishnu in many of Sankara's works -- but please don't confuse him, a great scholar and philosopher no doubt, with an acharya of our tradition, who operates under a very different set of philosophical and religious principles. Sankara's direct disciples praise other deities in their authentic works. Why would their acharya have done any differently? This all the more serves to underscore the uniqueness and 'aikAntitva' of our tradition and our acharyas. rAmAnuja dAsan Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 1999 Report Share Posted March 19, 1999 On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Mani Varadarajan wrote: > Sri Srimahavishnu wrote: > > There is one blasphemous SlOka in "soundaryalaharI" which makes the so > > called soundaryalaharI a "durgandhakUpam" and one of the ugliest > > works in sanskrit.that SlOka does not deserve to > > be mentioned in this great list ... > > Please DO cite this sloka. An assertion needs to > be backed up by evidence. I am not denying what > you are saying is true; I just do not know. Now > that you have made this assertion, I am sure many > of us are curious as to what this sloka is. > > I also find it unnecessary to call a work "ugly" > because *we* doctrinally disagree with it. > Further, disagreeing with a poem on a religious > basis should not make us incapable of appreciating > it on a purely poetic or rhythmic level. I would still like to call it ugly , since it hurts the sentiments of Vaishnavas(not SVs alone). I do not want to hurt the sentiments of fellow Sri VaishNavas.At the same time,facts can't be suppressed.After all, soundaryalaharI is not a grantham that can't be found in the market. The stOtra I found objectionable to VaishNavas starts like this: "sarasvatyA lakshmyA vidhi hari sapatnO viharatE, ratEh pAtivratyam...." i am avoiding translation for two reasons: 1.I am not an expert in accurate word-to-word sanskrit to English translation. 2.I don't want all BhAgavatas to understand the meaning of it. My sanskrit is not that bad that i can misundertstand the above line.Also i have gone through the Telugu translation by Dr T V A S Sarma, published in "Andhra Prabha" daily a few years ago. vandE lOkAbhirAmam raghukula tilakam rAghavam rAvaNArim dAsan V.Srimahavishnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 1999 Report Share Posted March 21, 1999 V.Srimahavishnu <vsri wrote: > I do not want to hurt the sentiments of fellow Sri VaishNavas.At the >same time,facts can't be suppressed.After all, soundaryalaharI is not a >grantham that can't be found in the market. > The stOtra I found objectionable to VaishNavas starts like this: > "sarasvatyA lakshmyA vidhi hari sapatnO viharatE, ratEh pAtivratyam...." > i am avoiding translation for two reasons: This is the 99th verse in the saundaryalaharI. I agree with Srimahavishnu that this verse will be offensive to *most* vaishhNava-s, whether shrIvaishhNava or not. I am an advaitin myself, but can recognize this fact. But if I may, I'd like to point out that the lakshmi in this verse metaphorically refers to wealth and the verse is a poetic exaggeration. The work saundaryalaharI is full of poetic exaggerations, especially combined with the shR^i.ngAra rasa. I have seen that whether these kinds of exaggerations are considered offensive or not depends on the background philosophy of the reader. But again, I agree with Srimahavishnu's sentiments that poetic exaggerations like these are offensive to general vaishhNava principles, and the offensiveness is not due to the philosophy expounded in the poem. Srimahavishnu writes in another mail: > I strongly believe that this is not the forum where things like >soundaryalaharI, lakshmI gaNapati stOtramAlA, ayyappa mAhAtmyam, >rAvaNAsura's exploits are to be discussed/appreciated. I have been reading this list for a long time now and as far as I can remeber I am the only person who posted anything which seemed "appreciative" of rAvaNa. If the above para refers to me, I suggest that Srimahavishnu read that mail again. It was connected with some philosophical point and I quoted straight from the vishhNu mahApurANa, which is considered an authoritative text by Sri Ramanuja. But, I do agree with Srimahavishnu that the other things like ayyappamahAtmyam, etc are quite tangential to this list and go against the fundamental premises of Srivaishhnavism. Ramakrishnan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.