addr: M. S. Hari

[Guest guest]

Dear Shree M.S. Hari,

It is understandable that you are on a mission to make

your understanding very clear to everyone on the Bhakthi list and

the Sri Vaishanava people, as such.

 

Though I belong to the Swayam Acharya Sampridaayam, I take strong objections

to your belittling remarks about what appeared on Sri Ranganatha Paduka.

If I remember well, it was you who were "Vociferous" about BHAAGAVATHA

APACHARA (reference Bhakthi archives). And 'Condemning' the verse and

calling it 'careless translation' sounds too immature for a person like you,

if your main intention is to spread "Srivaishnavism"

 

Every Paurusheya(some years later) or Apaurusheya work has always had

different interpretations. That is how the Sri Bhashyam and other

commentaries on commentaries came into being.

 

We might want to seek a clarification from the author of that piece of

article than having to interpret it to our convenience in order to uplift

our own image in the forum.

 

And let's not forget that all these magazines(Sri Ranganatha Paduka,

Narasimha Priya et al) are very sentimental to the Shishyas of various

Srivaishnava Acharyas and WILL NOT PREACH ANYTHING WRONG OR IRRELEVENT TO

THE MASSES. And one isnt superior to the other..they all mean good!!

 

And the main intention of Sri Ramanuja I thought was to show us the "Bhakthi

marga" than having to fight out with the texts. He used the texts to

convince 'outsiders'. For Bhakthas there was always their Acharya's

Thiruvadi and the Guru Parmapara and Prapatthi/Bharanyasa where I meekly

surrender and transfer all the "bhArA" to my Acharya-Lord. And I must lead a

SAATHVIC life full of Bhakthi and devoid of any "ahamkaara" so there will be

no "Bhaagavatha apachara"

 

||SRI EMPERUMANAR THIRUVADIGALE SHARANAM||

 

 

Dear Shree M.G. Vasudevan,

(this is a lengthy mail-please read it fully)

I have not responded to the recent posting by you quoting a "quotable quote"

for a magazine Sri Ranganaatha paadhukaa [sRP] vikrama aadi issue because, I

had not seen the context in which the quote occurs in it. Now I have got the

context of the same. I would like to strongly refute it and condemn the

presentation of the verse with careless translation in that magazine. I

doubt

the knowledge of the person who translated the verse in that magazine.

Please

note the following points.

 

Any authored work cannot be taken as Pramaanam. It can be accepted only if

it

is fully based on the Apourusheya Sruthi (Veda). If any authored work

contradicts the Sruthi, it has to be understood and synchronised with the

meaning of the Veda such that there is no deviation of its meaning from the

purport of Sruthi in that context. If it is not possible to do so, then the

authored work has to be rejected as non-authoritative.

 

..........

 

Thus I conclude that the "Veena Vaadanam", "Knowledge in Music",

"Naadopaasanam" etc., are not in any way to be considered equal to Bhakthi

and

Prapathi. Prejudices get shattered to pieces before Pramaanams.

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI Ramanuja Daasan.

 

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

dear BhAgavathAs,

adiyEn has been watching Sri M S Hari's comments (some

of them quite uncalled for)on the original posting on

Kuzhalosai, his questioning and doubting the efficacy

and authenticity of nAdOpAsanA as a means towards

prapatti and adiyEn was wondering why nobody is taking

up the issue strongly for nAdOpAsanA except one or two

postings. Sri Sheshadri's posting finally made me join

the issue.

there can be absolutely no doubt that nAdOpAsanA is

one of the easiest and surest means to lead one

towards prapatti. only a person who has not

experienced it can have doubts on this. adiyEn can

quote extensively from sadguru tyagaraja's

compositions like sangeeta gnAnamu, mOkshamu galadA,

shobillu shabtaswara etc. to support this viewpoint.

but adiyEn is afraid that the response may be

something on the lines that tyAgarajA was born as an

advaiti and what does he know about srivaishnavism, or

where is it stated in the srutis. well, saint

tyagarajA, UthukkAdu venkatasubbier and the likes were

born in advaiti families, but they were as much

srivaishnavites as anyone of us can ever be. casting

aspersions on their nAdOpAsanA is blasphemy to my

mind. it is something even sriman nArAyaNA will not

forgive and certainly tantamounts to bhAgavatha

apachAram of the highest order. if somebody were to

say that nAdOpAsanA will not lead to prapatti, adiyEn

does not want that kind of prapatti. if someone were

to say that tyAgarAjA or UthukkAdu or purandaradAsA's

nAdOpAsanA will not lead to mOkshA, adiyEn does not

aspire that kind of mOkshA. everytime we who believe

in nAdOpasanA hear a kriti like 'entharO mahAnubhAvulu

anthariki vandanamulu' or 'enna thavam seythanai

yasodA' (both composed by advaitis, by the way!) or

'krishnA nee beganE bArO', tears fill up our eyes. (my

eyes are moist as adiyEn types this). if this kind of

nAdOpasanA is not Bhakti then what is?

adiyEn is not a scholar like sri hari. but adiyEn

knows one thing certainly. Our Bhagavan has clearly

stated in His Gita that those who have acquired

theoretical knowledge of the shAstrAs and vedAs etc.

are not necessarily dear to Me. That person is dear to

Me who has placed his mind on Me. adiyEn is very clear

that nAdOpAsanA within seconds places my mind, body

and soul at His lotus feet. this to my immature mind

is the most practical way of seeking refuge at His

feet , even if a thousand Haris were to tell me that

it is not sanctioned by the scriptures.

may the learned bhAgavathAs pardon adiyEn for any

erroneous thought!

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan narasimhan

 

 

 

 

Kick off your party with Invites.

http://invites./