Guest guest Posted February 11, 2002 Report Share Posted February 11, 2002 bhakti-list, "Srikant Sadagopan" <srikasada@h...> wrote: > Dear Kumari Kalaivani et al, > When I started to read Kalaivani's explanation on the color "green" for > Krishna, I wondered if you were heading in the right direction because, > Radhe per se is not considered as "Piratti" or Thaayar in toto among Sri > Vaishnava Acharyas. It is Rukmini, the officially wedded wife of Sri Krishna > who is considered the manifestation of Thaayar. All other feminine forms > attracted to Krishna were either Amshams of thaayar or Gopikaas(reembodiment > of Vaanaras from the Ramayana times --there's a sperate story to that). True. Radha is not pirAtti in the purest sense of the term. In the ISKCON(Gaudiya Vaishnava) Sampradaya Lakshmi is consider as the Amsham of Radha and Naarayana is considered the Amsam of Krishna. These notions are in one word *FALSE* and represent very poor understanding of tarka sastras. I wish to bring to the notice of members that this list is dedicated to the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya and is meant for discussing the works of Sri Vaishnava Acharyas. Please do not mix Gaudiya Vaishnava Logic over here. On the other hand, Radha in the Sri Vaishanava Sampradya was outlined by Sri.Krishna Kashyap in an old post which I picked up from the archives. Radha in the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya is recognised as an amsam of the Vaanaras who re-incarnated during the Krishna Avatara as Gopikas. Radha is refered to in Swami Vedanta Desikar's Yadhavabhudayam. Yadhava-bhudhayam was commented upon even by the Advaitha Scholar Appayya Diskhita. This also means that the advaita school or as a matter of fact even the dvaita school do not recognise Krishna as the supreme god-head, but Krishna is recognised only as an avatara of Sriman naarayana. For a Complete Reference, please check the following link: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep99/0005.html Further more, in the Sri Vaishnava Sampradayam, Radha is a jiivatma and is Anu(finite) not vibhu(infinite). This is not the case in the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya. > But I must admit I was bowled over by your deduction of color schemes. It > was pure Bhakthi, intense anubhavam and a very constructive use of logic. > Really good to see some variety in Anubhavams among the youth today. I did not reply to Smt.Kalaivani's previous mail about the question of hari being green. The Combination with Radha does not make Sriman Naarayana Green as Smt.Kalaivani draws from her kindergarden logic. I refered to the Samskrutha Sabakosha (Sanskrit Dictionary) and here is what is present: HaritA means Green. This word is attributed to Mahalakshmi to emphasize the fact that the green wealth of the forests and crops have personified Mahalakshmi as Green therefore HaritA. Hari due to his association with Mahalakshmi is also Green therefore becoming HaritA sametha Hari. Equating Radha with Yellow is then again *now-where* found in sruthi vakhyams. To me, Smt.Kalaivani's logic does not go more than Kindergarten Logic or even represent 1% of the logic present in vyakharanam or tarka sastram. Her bhakti anubhavam is laudable. But without proper knowledge of attributes, contemplating on them or devotion towards them not recommended. For example, let us consider this; A person confused the Demon hayagriva with Bhagavan Hayagriva and presumed that both are the same. Thence, the person was singing in praise of Hayagriva without knowing the difference between the both. It is for this reason that worship should never be offered just by invoking a name, without knowledge of attributes. Without knowledge of attributes invoking a name is not recommended. Why would a person want to sing in praise of the demon Hayagriva??? > > ||Rukmini SamEtha sri Venugopala swAminE namaha|| Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Malolan Cadambi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2002 Report Share Posted February 12, 2002 Hari Om. I am a new entrant of this discussion group and as already mentioned in my earlier postings, a Smarta, i.e. a worshipper of all Gods including Vishnu and Siva. I do not pretend to completely understand the discussion about Hari, Radha and their colors. But I have one point to submit. Shri Malolan Cadambi says at the end of his reply that one should not offer worship without knowing all the attributes of a name. But if the person did not know that the word Hayagriva applied to both the demon and God (Vishnu), he would obviously be thinking of the positive aspects of that name only and not the negative aspects, isn't it? So, even if a person utters or praises a name without fully understanding all its attributes, he may still be saved by God. After all, Valmiki as a hunter was given the mantra Rama turned backwards (Mara) by the sages and he went on repeating the same and became a great Sage! In Devi Puranam also, Krishna and Radha are portrayed supreme. I don't claim to have studied all the different schools of thought and hence don't wish to confuse the issues further with my limited knowledge. I would like to make one appeal to the members of this elite group, that they correct each other with love and affection. Hari Om. S.V.Swamy --- Malolan Cadambi <mcadambi wrote: > bhakti-list, "Srikant Sadagopan" > <srikasada@h...> wrote: > > Dear Kumari Kalaivani et al, > > When I started to read Kalaivani's explanation on > the color "green" for > > Krishna, I wondered if you were heading in the > right direction because, > > Radhe per se is not considered as "Piratti" or > Thaayar in toto among Sri > > Vaishnava Acharyas. It is Rukmini, the officially > wedded wife of Sri Krishna > > who is considered the manifestation of Thaayar. > All other feminine forms > > attracted to Krishna were either Amshams of > thaayar or Gopikaas(reembodiment > > of Vaanaras from the Ramayana times --there's a > sperate story to that). > > True. Radha is not pirAtti in the purest sense of > the term. In the ISKCON(Gaudiya Vaishnava) > Sampradaya Lakshmi is consider as the Amsham of > Radha and Naarayana is considered the Amsam of > Krishna. These notions are in one word *FALSE* and > represent very poor understanding of tarka sastras. > I wish to bring to the notice of members that this > list is dedicated to the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya > and is meant for discussing the works of Sri > Vaishnava Acharyas. Please do not mix Gaudiya > Vaishnava Logic over here. > > On the other hand, Radha in the Sri Vaishanava > Sampradya was outlined by Sri.Krishna Kashyap in an > old post which I picked up from the archives. Radha > in the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya is recognised as an > amsam of the Vaanaras who re-incarnated during the > Krishna Avatara as Gopikas. Radha is refered to in > Swami Vedanta Desikar's Yadhavabhudayam. > Yadhava-bhudhayam was commented upon even by the > Advaitha Scholar Appayya Diskhita. This also means > that the advaita school or as a matter of fact even > the dvaita school do not recognise Krishna as the > supreme god-head, but Krishna is recognised only as > an avatara of Sriman naarayana. > > For a Complete Reference, please check the following > link: > http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep99/0005.html > > Further more, in the Sri Vaishnava Sampradayam, > Radha is a jiivatma and is Anu(finite) not > vibhu(infinite). This is not the case in the Gaudiya > Vaishnava Sampradaya. > > > > But I must admit I was bowled over by your > deduction of color schemes. It > > was pure Bhakthi, intense anubhavam and a very > constructive use of logic. > > Really good to see some variety in Anubhavams > among the youth today. > > I did not reply to Smt.Kalaivani's previous mail > about the question of hari being green. The > Combination with Radha does not make Sriman > Naarayana Green as Smt.Kalaivani draws from her > kindergarden logic. I refered to the Samskrutha > Sabakosha (Sanskrit Dictionary) and here is what is > present: > > HaritA means Green. This word is attributed to > Mahalakshmi to emphasize the fact that the green > wealth of the forests and crops have personified > Mahalakshmi as Green therefore HaritA. Hari due to > his association with Mahalakshmi is also Green > therefore becoming HaritA sametha Hari. Equating > Radha with Yellow is then again *now-where* found in > sruthi vakhyams. To me, Smt.Kalaivani's logic does > not go more than Kindergarten Logic or even > represent 1% of the logic present in vyakharanam or > tarka sastram. > > Her bhakti anubhavam is laudable. But without proper > knowledge of attributes, contemplating on them or > devotion towards them not recommended. For example, > let us consider this; > > A person confused the Demon hayagriva with Bhagavan > Hayagriva and presumed that both are the same. > Thence, the person was singing in praise of > Hayagriva without knowing the difference between the > both. It is for this reason that worship should > never be offered just by invoking a name, without > knowledge of attributes. > > Without knowledge of attributes invoking a name is > not recommended. Why would a person want to sing in > praise of the demon Hayagriva??? > > > > > > ||Rukmini SamEtha sri Venugopala swAminE namaha|| > > Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, > > Malolan Cadambi > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > ----------------------------- > - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH - > To Post a message, send it to: > bhakti-list > Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/ > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings! http://greetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2002 Report Share Posted February 12, 2002 radheshyam namo narayana dear malolan prabhu and all other bhaagavatas, i'd like to beg all ur pardon again. thanks to malolan prabhu we now do know the meaning of krishna's name hari. stand corrected. sorry for misleading anyone. what i wanted to say was that the union of pirati and perumal gave the color green. and since i'm attached to krishna, i used him as the example. but i guess that's just fanciful speculation on my part. sorry again. best wishes kalaivani radhegovinda namo venkateshaya hari hari >"Malolan Cadambi" <mcadambi ><bhakti-list> >Of Hari, Green and Radha >Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:24:08 -0600 > >bhakti-list, "Srikant Sadagopan" <srikasada@h...> wrote: > > Dear Kumari Kalaivani et al, > > When I started to read Kalaivani's explanation on the color "green" for > > Krishna, I wondered if you were heading in the right direction because, > > Radhe per se is not considered as "Piratti" or Thaayar in toto among Sri > > Vaishnava Acharyas. It is Rukmini, the officially wedded wife of Sri >Krishna > > who is considered the manifestation of Thaayar. All other feminine forms > > attracted to Krishna were either Amshams of thaayar or >Gopikaas(reembodiment > > of Vaanaras from the Ramayana times --there's a sperate story to that). > >True. Radha is not pirAtti in the purest sense of the term. In the >ISKCON(Gaudiya Vaishnava) Sampradaya Lakshmi is consider as the Amsham of >Radha and Naarayana is considered the Amsam of Krishna. These notions are >in one word *FALSE* and represent very poor understanding of tarka sastras. >I wish to bring to the notice of members that this list is dedicated to the >Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya and is meant for discussing the works of Sri >Vaishnava Acharyas. Please do not mix Gaudiya Vaishnava Logic over here. > >On the other hand, Radha in the Sri Vaishanava Sampradya was outlined by >Sri.Krishna Kashyap in an old post which I picked up from the archives. >Radha in the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya is recognised as an amsam of the >Vaanaras who re-incarnated during the Krishna Avatara as Gopikas. Radha is >refered to in Swami Vedanta Desikar's Yadhavabhudayam. Yadhava-bhudhayam >was commented upon even by the Advaitha Scholar Appayya Diskhita. This also >means that the advaita school or as a matter of fact even the dvaita school >do not recognise Krishna as the supreme god-head, but Krishna is recognised >only as an avatara of Sriman naarayana. > >For a Complete Reference, please check the following link: >http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep99/0005.html > >Further more, in the Sri Vaishnava Sampradayam, Radha is a jiivatma and is >Anu(finite) not vibhu(infinite). This is not the case in the Gaudiya >Vaishnava Sampradaya. > > > > But I must admit I was bowled over by your deduction of color schemes. >It > > was pure Bhakthi, intense anubhavam and a very constructive use of >logic. > > Really good to see some variety in Anubhavams among the youth today. > >I did not reply to Smt.Kalaivani's previous mail about the question of hari >being green. The Combination with Radha does not make Sriman Naarayana >Green as Smt.Kalaivani draws from her kindergarden logic. I refered to the >Samskrutha Sabakosha (Sanskrit Dictionary) and here is what is present: > >HaritA means Green. This word is attributed to Mahalakshmi to emphasize the >fact that the green wealth of the forests and crops have personified >Mahalakshmi as Green therefore HaritA. Hari due to his association with >Mahalakshmi is also Green therefore becoming HaritA sametha Hari. Equating >Radha with Yellow is then again *now-where* found in sruthi vakhyams. To >me, Smt.Kalaivani's logic does not go more than Kindergarten Logic or even >represent 1% of the logic present in vyakharanam or tarka sastram. > >Her bhakti anubhavam is laudable. But without proper knowledge of >attributes, contemplating on them or devotion towards them not recommended. >For example, let us consider this; > >A person confused the Demon hayagriva with Bhagavan Hayagriva and presumed >that both are the same. Thence, the person was singing in praise of >Hayagriva without knowing the difference between the both. It is for this >reason that worship should never be offered just by invoking a name, >without knowledge of attributes. > >Without knowledge of attributes invoking a name is not recommended. Why >would a person want to sing in praise of the demon Hayagriva??? > > > > > > ||Rukmini SamEtha sri Venugopala swAminE namaha|| > >Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, > >Malolan Cadambi > > > > > > >----------------------------- > - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH - >To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list >Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/ > > >Your use of is subject to > > radhe krishna! _______________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2002 Report Share Posted February 12, 2002 > But if the person did not know that the word Hayagriva > applied to both the demon and God (Vishnu), he would > obviously be thinking of the positive aspects of that > name only and not the negative aspects, isn't it? This does not mean that the person should not clear his/her doubt. And Certainly there is no blockade from anyside. If the mere name Hayagriva itself signified positive and negative aspects, this is because of the person's faulty understanding that the name points out towards the attributes, which clearly is not the case. To back up my point, Muthuswami Dikshitar who sang on Rama in one of his Krithis, referes to Vainatheya(Garudar) as Vinayaka. If you need further info, I will be more than glad to send you an email about the Krithi. The question here naturally arises. How is Vinayaka refered to as Vainatheya? I will send a separate mail which enunciates the *need* to FULLY understand Sanskrit Grammar before analysing Sruthi and Smruthi Vakhyams. Coming to your point, the name Vinayaka can refer to pArvathi putra Ganapathi and Vanitha putra Vainatheya. The attributes of Ganapathi and Garuda are totally different. If one cannot distinguish between the both, then I wonder that the same person would not be able to distinguish between and Elephant and a Eagle even if the person saw them standing in front of his/her eyes. In the same way, without complete knowledge of the attributes of Bhagavan Hayagriva, is it possible to worship while still in confusion about the difference between the demon hayagriva and Bhagavaan Hayagriva??? > > So, even if a person utters or praises a name without > fully understanding all its attributes, he may still > be saved by God. After all, Valmiki as a hunter was > given the mantra Rama turned backwards (Mara) by the > sages and he went on repeating the same and became a > great Sage! Rama spelled backwarads is not Mara. Moreover, mara means a dead person. Do you expect a poet of the greatest calibre like Valmiki praise Rama as the Dead Person???? Can you back your claim with a single shread of fact or a single verse from Srimad Valmiki Ramayanam?? Rama spelled backwards is AMAR or Ama-rA to be exact. Amara means the deathless one. This name of Vishu comes in the following Sahasranama stotra: 49 Amara-prabhuH PB: Lord of all Gods. He effects creation etc. by bestowing on the Gods authority (and directs them) for carrying them out. In srI rAmAyaNa brahma says to rAmA: "Lying on the waters of the great ocean You created me long ago". SA: The Master of the devas or the amaras (the deathless ones). (I picked this up from the Bhakti List Archives, so as to avoid typing out the same once more, here is my source; http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/mar96/0105.html) > In Devi Puranam also, Krishna and Radha are portrayed > supreme. I don't claim to have studied all the > different schools of thought and hence don't wish to > confuse the issues further with my limited knowledge. Here is what Puranas are defined as. Please back up your claim with evidence and a particular verse. (From a Dialogue on Hinduism by Sri.V.N.Gopala Desikan) For a Complete Article you may want to pursue the link: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/apr96/0055.html Q. Please tell me the Puranas that fall in these three groups. A. 1. The first set of six Puranas which are most sacred (Sattvika Puranas) are as follows: Vishnu Purana Bhagavatam Narada Purana Padma Purana Varaha Purana Garuda Purana 2. The second set of six Puranas, which are not wholly authoritative, (Rajasa Puranas) are: Vamana Purana Brahma Purana Markandeya Purana Bhavishya Purana Brahmanda Purana Brahma Vaivarta Purana 3. The last set of six Puranas, which are not very authoritative (Tamasa Puranas) are: Matsya Purana Kurma Purana Agni Purana Linga Purana Siva Purana Skanda Purana. Q. How do you accept these as authorities or Pramana? A. The basic rule is that the Vedas are the ultimate authority or Pramana. So, in the Puranas, whichever does not conflict or contradict the Veda, can be taken as authority. So where do you place the Devi Purana? Is the Devi Purana a Satvika, Tamasika or a Rajasika Purana? Besides, there is no mention of the Devi Purana in any of the above purana as a seperate purana, leave alone the possiblity of the devi purana being a Satvika purana. Even if, the Devi Purana is a subsection in the padma purana, it still cannot go above or contradict the shruthi. > > I would like to make one appeal to the members of this > elite group, that they correct each other with love > and affection. By commenting on the nature of the logic used by the purvapaksha correspondent of my mail "Of Hari, Green and Radha" i drew the same word from the correspondents' previous mail. There was no intention to emotionally hurt the correspondent. Please do not assume actions that were not meant to be. Regards, Malolan Cadambi P.S I sincerely hope Bhaktas spend atleast a little time learning Sanskrit before proceeding to make claims and suggestions without backing from Sruthi Vakhyams. Add to this, they should atleast try to follow what purvAcharyas of the *Sri Vaishanava Sampradayam* say on Sruthi Vakhyams and Philosophical discourses. > > Hari Om. > > S.V.Swamy _______ Get your free @ address at 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.