Guest guest Posted February 13, 2002 Report Share Posted February 13, 2002 SrI: SrImatE rAmAnujAya nama: Dear SrI mAlOlan cadAmbi swAmin, namO nArAyaNa! bhakti-list, "Malolan Cadambi" <mcadambi> wrote: > Radha in the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya is recognised as an amsam of > the Vaanaras who re-incarnated during the Krishna Avatara as > Gopikas. Could you please cite any SrI Vaishnava achAryA's work in proof of this statement? > 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. Could you please explain how *this* also means that advaitis or dvaitins do not recognize SrI krishna as the Supreme Godhead? SrI krishna is considered the Supreme God by SrI vaishnava achAryAs. Just to make your statements clearer, for SrI vaishnavAs, Lord SrI krishnA = The Supreme Godhead (para-brahman) = SrIman nArAyNa. The vEdAs and other shAstrAs, in one voice, speak this truth. (Reference:- Tattvam, Hitam, PurushArttam - Telephonic discourse by HH SrImad Azhagiya Singar) > 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. Thanks for the beautiful explanation. > Her bhakti anubhavam is laudable. But without proper knowledge of > attributes, contemplating on them or devotion towards them not > recommended. Sow. Kalaivani has a great bhakti at her age of 20, which many of the older, more learned people do not have. aDiyEn understands from her posts that she has willingness to learn and also has so much meekness, that a lot of us lack either in writings, actions, or in the thoughts. These great qualities of her definetly merit appreciation. aDiyEn, LakshmikumAr rAmAnuja dAsan SrImad Azhagiya Singar thiruvadigalE saranam! Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings! http://greetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2002 Report Share Posted February 14, 2002 Sri: Dear Sriman(s) Lakshmikumar and Gururaj Rao, I have addressed this email with sections as written to me by Sri.Lakshmikumar and as well as Sri.Gururaj Rao. At one point, both their questions were the same as to how the advaita and the dvaita sampradaya recognise krishna vis-a-vis narayana. > > Radha in the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya is recognised > as an amsam of > the Vaanaras who re-incarnated during > the Krishna Avatara as > > Gopikas. > > Could you please cite any SrI Vaishnava achAryA's work > in proof of this statement? Yadhavabhyudhayam of Swami Desikan apparently deals with the identity of Radha. I do not have a samskrutham copy here with me in the United States. I will however post a translation at my earliest possible. Moreover, the Srimad Bhagavatam refers to the relationship of Radha and Krishna as one of the highest forms of maha vishwaasam. Nappinnai is not to be confused with Radha. A search in the archives will be of utmost help. Sri.A.Bharath in an old post quoted U.Ve.E.S.Bhuvarahachariar as follows: "So too in today's pASuram "keezhvAnam",said Sri BhoovarAhA-chAriAr in his discourse on TiruppAvai,there is a girl who is a special favorite of KrishNa ..She has apparently not got up and the others come to wake her.They say,"We know that you are more partial to the BhAgavatas than to the Lord Himself; and in fact that is the reason He gives you a special place in His heart.And today you're demonstrating your liking for us by waiting to be awakened by us.That would give us the credit(taram) in the eyes of the world. And you are doing it deliberately for the good of our Being (nAngaL sattai peruvadarkAga),just as the Lord does it with His devotees,and RAma did it with His army leaders on the seashore." The Detailed mail can be found here: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/dec98/0185.html Concentrate on the particular line ".....and RAma did it with His army leaders on the seashore" This implies that the Vaanaraas who were RAma's army leaders during the rAma avatara have come to enjoy maha-vishvAsam with gopAla now. I hope this clears your doubt and the proof given is concrete. If you want more proof, I will be more than glad to study more and supply as much as proof I can infer with my limited intelligence and by the grace of purvAcharyas. > > > 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. > > Could you please explain how *this* also means that > advaitis or dvaitins do not recognize SrI krishna as > the Supreme Godhead? First let us consider Advaitam: (Thanks to Prof.D.V.N.Sharma for the translation) This is the commentary of Sridhara Swami (Advaitin) on Srimad Bhagavatam (EtE) puMsah paramESvarasya kEcidaMSAh kEcit kalA vibhUtayaSca. tatra matsyAdInAmavatAratvEna sarvajnatvasarvaSaktimatvE2pi yathOpayOgamEva jnAnakriyASaktyAvishkaraNam. kumAranAradAdi-shvAdhikArikEshu yathopayOgam aMSakalAvESah. tatra kumArAdishu jnAnAvESah, pRthvAdishu SaktyAvESah. kRshNastu bhagavAn sAkshAt nArAyaNa Eva, AvishkRtasarvaSaktitvAt. Most Important Verse "kRshNastu bhagavAn sAkshAt nArAyaNa Eva" Tr. These (avatArAs) of the purusha i.e, the Supreme Lord are some partial and some only kalAs(sixteenth parts).In matsyAvatAra etc. though omniscience and omnipotence are there, the power of knowledge and the power for action are exhibited only to the extent useful (for the job on hand). In case of avtArAs of authority as those of sanatkumAra and nAraDa the endowment of aMSa or kalA is only to the extent useful. In case of people like sanatkumAra knowledge is endowed and in case of people like pRthu it is the power for action that is endowed. But because of the exhibition of full power (of knowledge and action)Lord kRshNa is verily narayaNa. Thus according to Sridhara Swami, in some avatArAs though omniscience and omnipotence are there, they are exhibited only partially. In some avtArAs the presence of power itself is partial. In kRshNa the full powers are manifest. However, we have to consider the fact that the brahman in Advaitam is ultimately nirgunam. Now, progressing towards a debate on advaitam is not required or not even necessary as of now and as of relevance to this thread. Coming to the Madhava Siddhanta School of Thought (Dvaita School or Bimba-Prati-Bimba Vaada) Take the most important Sholka which outlines the Dvaita School in a nutshell: (Credits to Sri.Shrisha Rao of http://www.dvaita.org) "Sadhagamaikavijneyam Samathithaksharaksharam nArayanam sada vande nirodhoshasheshasadgunam" Translation: (Whom) it is possible to know well only from good scriptures, (who is) comprehensively beyond all that is destructible and indestructible; (that) Nârâyana I worship always, who is flawless and of the nature of an uncountable number of good qualities. > > SrI krishna is considered the Supreme God by SrI > vaishnava achAryAs. Just to make your statements > clearer, for SrI vaishnavAs, Lord SrI krishnA = The > Supreme Godhead (para-brahman) = SrIman nArAyNa. The > vEdAs and other shAstrAs, in one voice, speak this > truth. > (Reference:- Tattvam, Hitam, PurushArttam - Telephonic > discourse by HH SrImad Azhagiya Singar) Srimad Azhagiya Singar's upanyAsams can be considered as "sruthi". However, one *must* understand fully what the vakhyam means. Please pursue the article "KrshnAstu Bhagavam Swayam" of Sri.Anand Karalappakkam for your answer. It is written in detail there. The Article is in the Bhakti List Archives which everyone can pursue. One must understand that all Sri Vaishnava Acharyas of universal calibre like Srimad Azhagiya Singar undertake a very deep study of sastras before delivering upanyasams. During Upanyasams, they bring the nectar of the sruthis to simple terms for us to understand. When one gets doubt, one has to undertake a study of the sruthi under guidance from sri vaishnava acharyas. > Sow. Kalaivani has a great bhakti at her age of 20, > which many of the older, more learned people do not > have. aDiyEn understands from her posts that she has > willingness to learn and also has so much meekness, > that a lot of us lack either in writings, actions, or > in the thoughts. These great qualities of her > definetly merit appreciation. > The point of the fact is I never meant to hurt Smt.Kalaivani's feelings by merely correcting her posts. If my posts have been construed as a triade against Smt.Kalaivani, I wish to emphasise the fact that I did not in the first place intend to hurt her feelings. This should not be assumed or presumed. This was not meant to be. I greatly appreciate her willingness to start learning the shruthi/smrithis and purAnams and I pray to the divya dampathi to bless her in her philosophical/religious pursuits. Regards, Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Malolan Cadambi _______ Get your free @ address at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2002 Report Share Posted February 14, 2002 Hari Hari, Adiyen went through few postings of Shree. M Cadambi, Shree. Lakshmi Kumar and Shree. Gururaj Rao on this topic. Adiyeen respects the postings of all the three Bhagavathaas. I would also like to put forth my opinions on this topic after having read these postings. It is very rare to get a Person with both *Paandityam* and *Anubhavam* together. But *Paandityam* always takes a second seat after *Anubhavam*. All of our SadaAachaaryaas (Shree. Aadi Shankarar, Shree. Vudayavar, Shree. Madhwachaaryar) had both of extreme *Anubhavams* and *Pandityam*. *Anubhavams* need not be / should not be / cannot be reasoned with Logic / Tarkam. It is always adivisable to be some Aachaarya Paramparai for Bhagavad Vishayams to get the TRUTH as it is. But occassionally Shreeman Narayanan blesses *Anubhavams* to people not being in any Aachaarya Paramparai, just to give us the glimpse of his *Soulabhyam* (Eg : Valmiki Maharshi, Pandarapur Bhaktaas, Bhakta Meera, Kabir Das Etc.) One should not / never (more so with a Bhaagavathan) make an attempt to make some gradations (or classifications) in the matters related to Bhagavad Vishayam, Bhaagavatha Vishayam (Sarva Deeva Namaskaaraha Keshavam pratigachhati) The staunch followers of any SadaAchaarya Paramparai need not be with strong words while commenting on other SadaAchaarya Paramparai, because this would severely pain ShreemanNaaraayanan. Nishtai in any SadaAachaarya Sampradaayam will have to be kept purely personal and not for any arguments. Very often, one may come across religous beliefs / practices that tend to promote "Anya Sharanaagati" (in contrast to "Ananya Sharanaagati" to "ShreemanNaaraayanan"), or any such thing. In such situations, one can only pity such practices, or if possible one can make attempts to give proper inputs in soft ways, instead of getting into any arguments. Adiyen's aparaadhams in this mail may kindly be excused by the learned Bhaagavathaas of the Bhakti Group. Adiyen did not intend to hurt anyone. These are Adiyen's honest opinions. Hari Hari Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings! http://greetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2002 Report Share Posted February 14, 2002 Hari Om. Shri Malolan Kadambi Swamy has certainly much more knowledge of scriptures than many of us. When I received his detailed point-by-point reply to my posting, I was for once very happy. I was immediately reminded of the Sloka from Sri Bhagavad Gita, "Tadvidhhi Pranipatena Pariprasnena Sevaya...", Chapter 4-Sloka 34, where Sri Krishna tells Sri Arjuna how to get true Jnan. So by respectfully asking or sometimes even by innocently provoking learned scholars, we get enriched in our knowledge. So, we all should thank Sow. Kalaivani (may God bless her!) for triggering this interesting discussion, where another humble Krishna Bhakta Sri Guru Raj Rao has also made good contribution. And my thanks to Sri Lakshmikumar for some very nice sentiments. Sri Krishna, the son of Devaki and Vasudeva was accepted as God, Parabrahma by Sri Bhishma as evidenced by him in Sri Vishnu Sahasranama Stotram. In fact, Maha Bharatham is called the 5th Veda as it contains the essence of all Vedas. And Sri Vyasa, who authored Maha Bharatam was considered the incarnation of Sri Vishnu Himself. And He, in His kindness has given all of us two precious jewels, viz., Sri Bhagawad Gita and Sri Vishnu Sahasra Nama Stotram. If we accept Sri Krishna as Para Brahma, can we deny that Sri Radha is Para Shakti? The Devi Puranam which I read is called Sri Devi Bhagavatam and is authored by the same Sage Veda Vyasa. I said Puranam in a synonymous sense. Whether that is part of Padma Puranam, I don't know, but the telugu translation does not mention that. Yes, I too wish that I knew more of Sanskrit. But even through Telugu, one can learn a lot. Finally knowledge and Bhakti are different. I respect the vast knowledge of Sri Malolan Cadambi, but I also respect the Bhakti of Chy.Sow. Kalaivani and her utter humility (I was touched by her beautiful apology). I for one think of Vishnu as 'All Pervading'. So I would expect Him to be in all beings, with all colors that we can think of. I wouldn't mind if He appears to me in say red or yellow color. I bow again in respect to the scholar that Shri Cadambi certainly is. I respect his forthrightness in his views. I requested for kindness and love in criticism and correcting another's viewpoint, since all of us are not endowed with the charming devotion and humility of Sow.Kalaivani. Hari Om. S.V.Swamy --- Lakshmikumar <lakshmikumar wrote: > SrI: > SrImatE rAmAnujAya nama: > > Dear SrI mAlOlan cadAmbi swAmin, > > namO nArAyaNa! > > bhakti-list, "Malolan Cadambi" > <mcadambi> wrote: > > Radha in the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya is > recognised > as an amsam of > the Vaanaras who re-incarnated > during > the Krishna Avatara as > > Gopikas. > > Could you please cite any SrI Vaishnava achAryA's > work > in proof of this statement? > > > 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. > > Could you please explain how *this* also means that > advaitis or dvaitins do not recognize SrI krishna as > the Supreme Godhead? > > SrI krishna is considered the Supreme God by SrI > vaishnava achAryAs. Just to make your statements > clearer, for SrI vaishnavAs, Lord SrI krishnA = The > Supreme Godhead (para-brahman) = SrIman nArAyNa. The > vEdAs and other shAstrAs, in one voice, speak this > truth. > (Reference:- Tattvam, Hitam, PurushArttam - > Telephonic > discourse by HH SrImad Azhagiya Singar) > > > 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. > > Thanks for the beautiful explanation. > > > Her bhakti anubhavam is laudable. But without > proper > knowledge of > > attributes, contemplating on them or devotion > towards them not > > recommended. > > Sow. Kalaivani has a great bhakti at her age of 20, > which many of the older, more learned people do not > have. aDiyEn understands from her posts that she has > willingness to learn and also has so much meekness, > that a lot of us lack either in writings, actions, > or > in the thoughts. These great qualities of her > definetly merit appreciation. > > aDiyEn, > LakshmikumAr rAmAnuja dAsan > SrImad Azhagiya Singar thiruvadigalE saranam! > > > > > > Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings! > http://greetings. > > > ----------------------------- > - 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 14, 2002 Report Share Posted February 14, 2002 SrI: I would like to clarify that for all practical purposes we consider only the Sattvika Puranas . Pl. go thro' the archives on the classification of puranas. http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/apr96/0055.html namO nArAyaNA Diwakar ----------------------------- Swamy Swarna wrote: "If we accept Sri Krishna as Para Brahma, can we deny that Sri Radha is Para Shakti? The Devi Puranam which I read is called Sri Devi Bhagavatam and is authored by the same Sage Veda Vyasa. I said Puranam in a synonymous sense. Whether that is part of Padma Puranam, I don't know, but the telugu translation doesnot mention that." ----------------------------- Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings! http://greetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2002 Report Share Posted February 14, 2002 Sri: Dear Smt.Swamy Swarna, I appreciate your comments and I thank you for your appreciation of my previous posts. Point 1) I am *not* a scholar. What I state is merely what my purvAcharyas and present day acharyas state. I use the same arguements as they use and it is only due to their credit and training that I can pursue the shruthis and the sri sookthis. If I have expressed anything wrong it is only due to my folly and foolhardiness. On the other hand, all the credit goes to my purvAcharyas and present day acharyas. > > If we accept Sri Krishna as Para Brahma, can we deny > that Sri Radha is Para Shakti? The Devi Puranam which > I read is called Sri Devi Bhagavatam and is authored > by the same Sage Veda Vyasa. I said Puranam in a > synonymous sense. Whether that is part of Padma > Puranam, I don't know, but the telugu translation does > not mention that. Please pursue my previous articles and the article "KrushnAstu Bhagavan Swayam" which can be found in the Bhakti List Archives. In order not to be redundant, I am avoiding posting the entire long article here. Here is a link for the article: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/apr2000/0168.html If you do not have time to read that entire article, here is a slokam from the Gopala Vimshati of Swami Vedanta Desikan on the KrishnA Avataram jayati lalitAvRttIm sikshito vallavInAm. Sitila valaya sincA SItalairhasta tAlai: | akhilabhuvanarakshA gopaveSasya viSno: AdhAra maNi sudhAyAm. amsavAn vam.AsnAla: || <Verse 16 of Gopala Vimshati of Swami Desikan> Concentrate on the line "akhilabhuvanarakshA *gopaveSasya viSno*" Gopavesasya Visno: means Vishnu in Gopala's Vesha(Literally Disguise, in this context an Avatara). It is beyond tangible doubt that Krishna is the Avatara of Vishnu and not the other way round. Here is a translation of the Verse by Dr.V.Sadagopan: The incarnation of Vishnu taking the form of a cowherd to protect all the universes has on its coral-red lips the bamboo flute that tastes the nectar of this Gopala's mouth. As he plays the flute on the banks of the Yamuna river during the moon-lit nights, the lovelorn Gopis engage in rAsa krIDa with him. The Gopis beat taaLam to the music of their Lord with their cool hands decorated with golden bangles. Their follow-up with taaLam suggests as though they are teaching the abhinayam step known as LaLitham to the flute of the Lord. [The Abhinaya sastras describe LaLitham as the gesture, where the dancer places her hands on the appropriate portion of the body and change the movement of her eyebrows to mimic the different rasas. The delectable interplay between the bhAvam, rAgam and tALam - Bharatanatyam - is suggested here as the rAsa krIDa progresses.] Point 2). The Para-Shakti is *not* the brahman. The Suddha Sattva is only an aspect of the Brahman but not the brahman itself. Could you please the quote from the Devi Bhagavatam as I cannot comment on the same without reading the original. I am in earnest to receive your reply at your earliest convenience. You may want to pursue this link for a detailed answer: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/aug98/0340.html > I bow again in respect to the scholar that Shri > Cadambi certainly is. I respect his forthrightness in > his views. I requested for kindness and love in > criticism and correcting another's viewpoint, since > all of us are not endowed with the charming devotion > and humility of Sow.Kalaivani. Point 3) I never meant any triade when replying to Smt.Kalaivani's mail. This is the second time I am writing about this and I clearly will state it once again "I never meant to hurt the feelings of Smt.Kalaivani". I respect her deep devotion to gopAla and am *humbled* by it. When I wrote the article countering Smt.Kalaivani's explanations, I never meant to disrespect her. I request you *not* to construe that my replies were devoid of love and kindness. Best Regards, Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Malolan Cadambi 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.