mahavishnu follow-up note

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

Re: Mahavishnu's follow-up:

 

I wish I could finally put Mr.Mahvishnu's recent brouhaha behind me and

get on with the much pleasanter task of discussing the "nrsimha

karAvalamba" stOtram…. which was what I had set out to do in the first

place before Mr.Mahavishnu entered the scene and hijacked the

proceedings with his shrill and tangential tirade (he calls it

"challenge"!) against the "soundarya-lahari".

 

I will make a few final comments on his most recent note and then would

like to treat the matter as closed from my side. Really, I'd rather

expend my energies more profitably by concentrating on discussing the

"karAvalamba-stotra".

 

(1) Mr.Mahavishnu says:

"I too tried to be catholic by stating that Sankara might not have

--------------------

written the SlOka that I had found to be highly objectionable."

 

 

I find this to be very twisted logic indeed!

One little line or phrase in the "soundarya-lahari" offends

Mr.Mahavishnu and that's more than enough cause for him to launch

headlong into pillorying all of the hymn. He DOES NOT find a single

thing "offensive" in the "lakshmi-nrsimha karAvalamba stOtram"… Ergo

(therefore), he concludes, it "might not have been written by Sankara"

at all !!!

 

This kind of bizarre reasoning reminds me of the controversy concocted

by scholars of English Literature. Some time ago there were people in

the academic fringe of England's universities who were fond of spreading

the canard that Shakespeare's masterpieces were not actually his! They

were all stolen from Christopher Marlowe!

 

 

(2) Mr.Mahavishnu also wrote:

 

"When a work like soundaryalaharI is praised in this forum, how

can one let it go unchallenged?I think this work deserves the sharpest

criticism and strongest condemnation,whoever may be the author (be it

Sankara or his grandpa)."

 

Since Mr.Mahavishnu says he has read and digested "more than 12 of

Sankara's works", I reckon he should be able to easily enlighten us all

through a separate series of scholarly posts why, as a hard-boiled

Vaishnava, he considers the entire "soundarya-lahari" to be a travesty

of all poetic value in Sanskrit literature. I for one would really enjoy

that kind of effort, Mr.Mahavishnu.

 

But for the present will you please give me some space on the list and

let me continue with my humble endeavour of essaying a few thoughts on

the "karAvalamba stOtram"? Believe me, I have no "ahamkAram" or vanity

in all this business. All I want to do is to share my private enjoyment

of this stOtra with other member-friends who have encouraged me to do

so… Like Sri. Anbil, Sri.Sadagopan, Sri.Mani, Sri.Ramgopal Mudumbi,

Sri.K.P.Sridharan, Sri.G.Surya and others.

 

Thank you for your interest.

 

Regards,

Sudarshan

 

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Sudarshan et al:

 

There is no need to use words as weapons and engage as

name calling. Even if one thinks that one has been

offended, it is absolutely inappropriate in this forum

to criticize the other as being "shrill", or someone

else having "hijacked" the discussion. If you have

problems with the personalities behind the writing,

contact them directly or send a private note to me.

 

I do not wish to see any more personal email on this

issue brought out on to the list. Sudarshan, you have

been a particularly egregious violator in this case.

 

Please cease and desist!

 

Hopefully the last word on this issue,

Mani

 

P.S. In case it is at all in doubt, a detailed discussion

of the 'saundarya-lahiri' is most definitely NOT appropriate

for this list. It is not a Sri Vaishnava work nor is it

intended for Sri Vaishnavas.