[[Doubt on Thridandi Sanyasi]]

[Guest guest]

Dear Shree Mani Varadarajan,

 

I appreciate the way in which you have put your arguments. I have

something to tell you now.

The Parama Vaidika Matham Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnavam is not an

"idea" or "belief" but it is established in the Apourusheya Sruthi.

There is considerable evidence in Paripaadal for this that ancient

Tamil was only the Srowta-Smaartha matham Shree Vaishnavam. If one

reads Pairpaadal without prejudice, then he/she can understand this.

Of course, other worships where there. But one must note that mere

"worship" of a deity does not mean following a religion! Because,

"worship" of Vishnu alone is not Shree Vaishnavam. Note that this

"worship" of Vishnu is also for Dvaita and Advaitas. I convey my

highest regards for the work done by Shree Puttur Swamy in this

aspect.

 

The "Tirukural" has clearly talked about "Visistadvaita Shree

Vaishnavam" explicitly. Any body can say anything. I do not care

for prejudices. My thought is to register everyone's ideas, respect it,

and find out what is the truth in them. "EpporuL yAr yAr vAi

kEtpinum apporuL meipOrul kAnbadu arivu". If someone tell something

in a convincing way and another person also tells something else in

convincing way, then a rational person should not conclude that

"the purport cannot be ascertained or it cannot be known". He/she

should use his analytical skills to find out the truth. One must

not go by personalities. If some other religion claims that "Tirukural"

is of their own religion" and also Shree Vaishnavam claims that

it is their own, and if all such arguments are convincing, then

we have to carefully find what exactly "Tiruvalluvar" has told in

his work. It can be proved that the concepts told in Tirukural

are the same as in the Parama Vaidika Matham's philosophy and

practice. If a person just goes by "convincing arguments" of many

but contradicting each other, then the same logic can be extended

to Saareeraka Saastra where many have told many "convincing" ideas

but only the Bhaasya of Bhagavat Ramanuja is called "Shree Bhaasya"!

because "Shree Bhaasya" is the only purport of Saareeraka while the

others are just prejudices. "Tirukural" is 100% as per Veda, Manu

and Bhagavath Smurthi.

 

You have written

>In any case, none of this really matters in the long run.

I agree with you but not fully.

 

You have written

>These are historical issues, not Vedantic. Our 'AdhAram' are the Alvars'

>pAsurams, not what Tamils believed in sangam times or what Tamils

>believe now.

You have to note that Alvars themselves have considered the

Apourusheya Veda as their "AdhAram". Futher, we have to necessarily

consider History and should not omit it as "not vedantic". History

has helped Vedantins to ascertain many things. I accept that there

are deviations and contradictions in personal ideas. But the "Mimaamsa"

takes in account every aspect and has established the Parama Vaidika

Matham Shree Visishtadvaita Shree Vaishnavam".

One must also understand clearly that any "Pourusheyam" is not

independently authoritative. It has to be based fully on "Apourusheyam"

to be authoritative.

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI Ramanuja Daasan.

 

 

 

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1