[addr: M. S. Hari]

[Guest guest]

Dear Shree Sheshadri Ranganathan,

 

I thank you for you mail. I strongly object your words as calling

my remarks as "belittling remarks" and "Vociferous" There is no

"Bhaagavatha Apachara" involved in my reply. If you want to call

it "immature for a person like me" then do you think that strong

refuting of certain anti-shree-vaishnava words itself as "immature"?

Then can you quote from Prastaana Trayam that mere Veena-Vaadanam with

knowledge in music is itself is Moksha-Upaayam? Please get back to me

with proper Pramaanam. The issue of "immature" can be sorted out. I

take your words very seriously. Please do not just interpret words

without proper understanding of the context in full.

 

You have written:

"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"

============================================================

I really do not understand what you mean by this which is "confusing"

for me. To exactly know how Sri Bhashyam came into existence, please

read it under schloars to know. Have you studied Sri Bhashyam under

the guidance of Scholars?

============================================================

 

You have written:

"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."

============================================================

There is no prejudice here. Please get back to me with proper pramaanam

as I have already told.

============================================================

 

You have written:

"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!!"

============================================================

Please get back to with Pramaanam from Prastaana Trayam that

only "Veena-Vaadanam with knowledge in music" is Mokshopaayam.

Please note that I have not talked anything as "superior to the

other". I do not know why you have mentioned it. A rational person

should not go by prejudices.

============================================================

 

You have written

"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

beno

"Bhaagavatha apachara"

============================================================

What is that "Bhakti marga" shown by Sri Ramanuja? What do you mean by

your argument that "He used "texts" to convince 'outsiders'? If the

Veda is used only to "convince" outsiders, then from where the

knowledge about Brahman was attained? Please do reply. I do not have

any "ahamkaara" but only repeat the words of Poorva-Aacharyas.

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI Ramanuja Daasan.

 

 

 

__________________

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