Of Hari, Green, and Radha

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImatE rAmAnujAya nama:

 

Dear SrI Malolan swAmin, SrI S.V.Swamy & SrI T.L.

Mohan,

 

naMo nArAyaNa!

 

First of all, aDiyEn wants to let everyone know that

my intention of the previous post was out of curiosity

to know the sources of the statements in SrI mAlOlAn

cadAmbi's mail and not to question the validity of his

statements.

 

aDiyEn was afraid that his statment "SrI Krishna was

considered *only* as an avataram of SrIman nArAyaNa",

could be construed, by some, to mean that SrI krishnA

is some what inferior to SrIman nArAyNa, while he

meant to say SrI krishnA and SrIman nArAyaNa are same

and how SrI krishnA is an avatAram of SrIman nArAyaNa

and not vice-versa.

 

SrI S.V.Swamy 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

> does

> not mention that.

 

SrI mAlOlan swAmi has already clarified this in his

mail. The purAnam in question viz. dEvi bhAgavatam is

not one of the authorized 18 main purAnAs. aDiyEn is

not sure if it comes under the 18 upa-purAnAs. aDiyEn

has also read this dEvi bhAgavatam in Tamil a long

time ago.

 

Nowadays, it is not uncommon to find "new" purAnAs

written by people with Sanskrit knowledge with the

claim that the author of the purAnA is SrI vEda vyAsA.

This is to make people believe in what they wanted to

say.

 

Whether Devi Bhagavatham is one of the 18 upa purAnAs

or one of the "new" purAnAs, it is not part of the

sAttvIka purAnAs that are consistent with the Shrutis

aka 4 vEdAs. Hence, it can not be considered as a

pramAnA.

 

Devi Bhagavatham claims a theory that Devi is the

Supreme and she is the one who created Siva, Vishnu

and Brahma. This completely violates the vEdAs and the

other shAstrAs.

 

That aside, aDiyEn has even heard of biographis of

modern day so-called bhAbAs that claim that the

X-bhAbA or Y-bAbA as the Supreme God!!

 

If we can accept anything on the name of purAnA, I can

write a "lakshmIkumAr purAnA - author SrI vEdA vyAsa"

and claim that I am the Supreme God. Doesn't it sound

so silly???

 

We can find vEdAs glorifying SrI krishnA (who is none

other than SrIman nArAyaNa) as the Supreme (vedais ca

sarvair aham eva vedyo, vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

Sr BG 15.15) and SrI as the Supreme Goddess. Can we

cite a passage from vEdA that glorifies Smt. rAdhA as

the Supreme Godess? The answer is an obvious "NO". So

the answer to your question is "Yes, we can deny Smt

rAdhA is parasakthi".

 

So it is clear that Smt rAdhA, who is a great devotee

of SrI krishnA, is a jIvAtma who is not pirAtti. There

is no authentic shAstrA that claims that she is an

amsam of SrI.

 

The SrI vaishnava achAryAs (who are blemishless) have

clearly shown us the tattvam, hitam and purushaarttam

which are consistent with the srutis and smrutis,

which are verily the commandments of Lord SrIman

nArAyaNa. The sobriquet pirAtti is used only with SrI

(and Her avatArams like Smt Rukmini are called periya

pirAtti), bhUmi (and her avatArams like Smt AandAL),

and nilA (and her avatArams like Smt nappinnai - the

foremost amonst the gOpa strIs). They are extolled in

vEdAs as well. Hence the term pirAtti can *not* be

used with Smt. Radha and other gOpikAs.

 

SrI T.L Mohan wrote:

> All of our SadaAachaaryaas (Shree. Aadi Shankarar,

> Shree. Vudayavar, Shree. Madhwachaaryar) had both of

> extreme *Anubhavams* and *Pandityam*.

 

aDiyEn does not want to create an argument here. But

for the sake of preciseness, aDiyEn wants to point out

that only SrI rAmAnujar (amonst the above 3) is

considered a sadAchArya as he is the only one (out of

the above 3) who has shown the true import of vEdAs

(ie) bagavAn's tiruvullam and thus making us surrender

unto His lotus feet.

 

SrI T.L. Mohan wrote:-

> *Anubhavams* need not be / should not be / cannot be

> reasoned with Logic / Tarkam.

 

SrI S.V. SwAmy wrote:-

> Finally knowledge and Bhakti are different.

 

Both knowledge without bhakthi, and bhakthi without

knowledge are simply useless! To do proper bakthi on

proper tattva, one needs to have proper knowledge!

 

Our great SrI vaishnava achArAs always emphasized that

the anubhavams be in accordance with the shAstrAs.

 

In prathAna sathakam 59, SwAmi SrI vEdAnta dESikan

says that a bhAgavathA with superior Jn~Anam is

pradhAnam over all the bhAgavathAs possessing

Bhagavath bhakthi .

> 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.)

 

Maharshi SrI Valmiki had maharshi SrI nAradA as his

achAryA (Please correct me if I am wrong). As for the

others are considered, their works are *not*

consistant with shAstrAs which are the commandments of

the Supreme Lord. How then can we say that they were

blessed by SrIman nArAyaNa like He blessed the most

venerable AzhwArs with the most perfect knowledge

about Him (mayarvaRa mathi nalam)?

> 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.

 

You mean to say that SrIman nArAyaNa will feel pain if

one tries to explain the proper purport of the

shAstrAs to others?

 

Please read the attached post that was sent to aDiyEn

by SrImAn Muralidhar swAmi. ( SrImAn Muralidhar

swAmin, Thanks for dEvarIr's wonderful mail with H.H.

SrImad PoundarIkapuram Andavan swAmi's elucidation of

the name krishnA and dEvarIr's reflections! Thanks to

the Lord for bestowing us such great achAryAs, in the

SrI vaishnava paramparA, who teach us the true

meanings of the shAstrAs!)

 

aDiyEn,

LakshmIkumArrAmAnuja dAsan

SrImad Azhagiya Singar thiruvadigalE saranam!

-------------

 

Sri:

 

SrimatE Gopaladesika MahadesikAya Namaha,

 

Dear Sriman Lakshmikumar Swamin,

 

Adiyen read with interest your response to Sriman

Malolan Cadambi. This post caused adiyen to reflect on

a few aspects of Lord Krishna expounded upon by H.H.

Srimad Poundarikapuram Andavan Swami in his Gopala

Vimshati upanyasam tapes. H.H. waxes eloquent about

the namam Krishna as

 

"The name Krishna is fascinating due to the fact that

it is made up of the words ka, ra, sha, Na and A. Ka

symbolizes his eternal union with Thayar. Therefore,

He is known as Shriya: pati (one who is never

separated from Sri). Ra denotes the fact that He is

none other than Lord Rama, who has incarnated again.

Sha is indicative of Him being replete with the six

auspicious attributes of jnAna, bala, aishwarya,

shakti, tejas, and vatsalya. Na signifies the fact

that He is none other than Bhagavan Nrusimha, who has

incarnated again (It may be remembered that Bhagavan

Nrusimha denotes Pida Pariharam for Bhaktas

and Pida pradanam for Dushtas), while A at the end of

His name embodies the Nara-Narayana aspects of His

avataram." Isn't it nectarine to reflect upon this

delectable name, which is the panacea for all ills?

 

Niruktham defines trayi to mean-AdhyAtmika,

Adhibhowdika and Adhidaivika. All aspects pertaining

to Trayi are discussed in the four vedas. The most

telling testimony to the supremacy of Lord

Krishna is contained in the Narayana upanishad

salutation "brahmaNyO devakIputhrO brahmaNyO

MadhusUdhanOm". He is the supreme being

glorified in all the four Vedas. He is the one who is

described as "YathO vAchO nivartantE AprApya manasA

saha" (meaning: Words cannot adequately describe the

vast expanse of His glory. The mind cannot

comprehend his incomparable mahima.) in the Taittriya

upanishad.

 

Namo Narayana,

 

SriMuralidhara dasan nama Ramanuja dasan

 

----------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings!

http://greetings.