outburst of a angry vaishnavite

[Guest guest]

Dear Devotees,

Narsi Mehta lived about five hundred years ago in Junagadh, a town in Gujarat..

He was a great devotee of God Krishna. He sang bhajans in honour of God. He is

the author of the famous Vaishnava-jana-to song.

 

Narsi was a rich man. But he gave away all his money to the poor and needy. When

the time came for his daughter's marriage, his wife requested him to ask some

rich people for money for the marriage expenses.

 

Narsi replied: "Last night my Lord Krishna of Dwaraka came to me in my dream. He

said, 'Narsi. do not worry about your daughter's marriage. Send somebody to

Dwaraka with a hundi for the amount of money you need. Address it to Seth

Samaldas. He will give you the money, and you can have your daughter married."

 

Narsi wrote a hundi for Rs. 1500 and asked their cowherd to take it to Dwaraka.

A hundi is a letter asking for money with a promise to pay within a certain

period of time. Some merchants who were going to Dwaraka were staying in the

cowherd's house. They said: "We have some money. We shall give you Rs. 1500

immediately and take your hundi. As we are ourselves going to Dwaraka, we shall

collect the money from Seth Samaldas and give him the hundi." Narsi handed over

the hundi accordingly. He celebrated the marriage of his daughter with the money

that he borrowed on the hundi.

 

The merchants arrived in Dwaraka. They searched for Seth Samaldas. But in the

whole of Dwaraka there was no Seth Samaldas. They were disappointed and also

angry. They thought Narsi had deceived them. At last a man came to see the

merchants. He said, "I am Seth Samaldas. What do you want?" The merchants

replied, "We have a hundi for Rs. 1500 which Narsi Mehta of Juna- gadh gave to

us."

 

"Yes, I have brought the money for Narsi, who is my dear friend. You may take

this money and give me the hundi!" said Seth Samaldas. The merchants were

pleased and greatly relieved; they also felt sorry for having doubted Narsi's

honesty. They did not know that Lord Krishna himself had come as Seth Samaldas

to help his devotee!

 

Narsi had complete faith in the Lord and his plans for him. That is why he

distributed his wealth to the poor and himself lived a frugal life. Lessons and

advice from such persons are a great treasure house of the rules of Dharma. In

his Vaishnava-jana-to song, a favorite of Mahatma Gandhi, another friend of the

poor and downtrodden, Narsi listed certain virtues that would identify a

man/woman as a true Vaishnava. Below is a translation of the poem:

 

Call him a Vaishnava who feels for the suffering of another

And forgets the good he does to another, never taking pride in it.

He cares not for the praise and condemnation of the world

nor himself indulges in it.

He is not attached to women and wealth;.

He is the same to all, is desire-less

and the women of others, he considers like unto his mother.

He never speaks falsehood

nor has he his eye on another one's wealth.

He is no slave of any passion or attachment,

and the spirit of renunciation rules his mind.

His heart is fixed on the Lord, whom he is restless to meet,

Truly , he himself has become like a holy place that pilgrims travel to visit.

He is neither avaricious, nor vile nor a victim to wrath and desire.

Says Narsi:

Verily he and his family shall cross the cycle of rebirth.

 

It is significant and noteworthy that one who lived a frugal life dedicated

wholly to Sri Krishna and considered himself a vaishnavite, laid emphasis on the

inner traits of a saintly person, not the outer garb of dress or the rituals and

other similar practices. A similar description may be found also in the Bhagawad

Gita in the 2nd Chapter where Krishna explains to Arjuna how to recognize a

sthitha pragnyan, a realized person.

 

Dasan

Krishnaswamy

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Harihi Om

 

I beg to differ with most of the commentators so far on the topic. Though

the initial question was somewhat crude and awkward, it did help to bring

about an important dialog on this forum.

 

Sri Mani said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged". If we take this route, how is

it then, that we are able to distinguish between Right and Wrong, Good and

Bad, Moral and Immoral and ultimately, Virtuous and Evil ? In absence of an

ability to so judge, we will not be in a position to use examples either

from scriptures, mythology or real life (most effective) to identify these

differences to our children in whom we are expected to instill good

qualities. Wouldn't we readily accept the fact that Hiranya Kashipu was evil

and Prahlada was noble? Who were the judges in this case? One might argue

especially, in this day and age that the distinctions are relative, a

practice popularly known as "Moral Relativism", and no one has any right to

judge anyone else because in the name of individual freedom and liberty, one

can set his or her own rules of conduct. Imagine the kind of chaos that the

world would be in if Moral relativism is accepted as the basis for any

social order ! Our poorvacharyas understood this and so did founders of many

modern civilizations and decided that there needed to be certain "absolutes"

against which a society can measure its performance. Such absolutes took the

form of for example, "Ten Commandments" among Biblical religions and

"Anushthanas" and other rigorous ritual as well as self-disciplines

prescribed in our sampradayam and other sects of Hinduism in general.

 

At the start of Sandhyavandanam, the mantra for the process of self

purification includes both external and internal purification in readiness

for the spiritual act or acts that are to follow. This implies that internal

purification has to begin with external purification. External purification

sets one up with a framework of mind for what is to follow. It is therefore,

necessary that there are satisfactory outward appearances present to

encourage an onlooker or an inquisitive individual to proceed to learn more

about the subject. I don't think anyone can deny the fact that most of us

will not readily associate ourselves with other individuals if we see

something in their behavior that we don't like.

 

Quoting Sri Mani again, " I shudder to think of the consequences if I were

judged, merely on external appearances", is just the kind of awareness that

one should have to remind one of acceptable conduct in a civilized society.

External appearance is most likely, not the final rung in judging an

individual but surely, the first one.

 

Remove our beliefs, anushthanams, rituals and our conduct towards one

another that these preparatory tools are supposed to render us, I don't see

how anyone can claim to be a Srivaishnava as opposed to being a follower of

any other faith.

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

Keshava Prasad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

<mani

<bhakti-list>

Friday, February 14, 2003 4:45 PM

Re: outburst of a angry vaishnavite

 

> > In a recent

> > function attended by my appa of a member of he said he

> > was shocked to see the parents of the bidegroom eating

> > food in both the hands and ever thing against the so

> > called anushtanams which the group was started the

> > spread

>

> Others have said it well but I am reminded of

> the Biblical statement "Judge not, lest ye be

> judged." Who among us has not lapsed in our

> ritual purity in some way or another? I shudder

> to think of the consequences if I were judged

> merely on external appearances. Though none of

> us can be compared in any measure, the story of

> Jada Bharata also comes to mind as good food

> for thought.

>

> But yet I am not surprised at the shock of you

> and your father. This is the sad state of our

> community when orthodoxy is judged principally

> on the basis of ritual cleanliness and not on

> internal qualities and formal anusthanam of some

> form or another is the primary measure of one's

> Vaishnavatva.

>

> Mani

> [writing as a participant and not as moderator]

>

>

> -----------------------------

> - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

> To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list

> Group Home: bhakti-list

> Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

Please refer to the above subject.

I recall two quotes in this regard. One from AchArya hridhayam and one from

upadhEsa rathinamAlai.

 

AchArya hridhayam: sUthram 18 "thOl puraiyE pOm adhukku pazhudhilA

yOgyadhai vENdum;

manam vudaiyEr engiRa sradhaiyE amaindha marmasparsikku nAnum namarum ennum

sarvarum adhigArigaL"

For adhering to vEdhic principles, recitations and rituals one needs

blemishless practices which springs from basically ones birth - related to

ones physical form.

 

For praNavArtham which is the premise of srEvaishNvaic faith and

dhivyap-prabhandham whoever has desire and interest from his innermost soul

are all eligible.

Thus for learning vEdic rituals one's physical body determines the

eligibility whereas for srEvaishNavism one's soul and the innate interest

determines the eligibility.

Thus external appearances are relegated insofar as srEvaishNavic leanings is

concerned.

 

The second quote I refer here is upadhEsarathinamAlai pAsuram

"OrAn vazhiAi upadhEsithAr munnOar, yErAr ethirAsar innaruLAL,

pArulagil Asai udaiyOrkellAm,. AriyargAl kUrum enRu pEasi varambaruthAr pin"

 

The AchAryAs preceding swAmi emperumAnAr gave upadhEsam on one to one basis.

( After determining eligibility etc.

However, swAmi emperumAnAr, out of his voluntary blessings, gave the

upadhEsam to one and all who were interested to learn immaterial of the

eligibility criteria otherwise.

 

Thus, though external habits and appearances are important, they do not form

part of eligibiltiy criteria at all.

Otherwise, how can we account for the Lord's voluntary blessing on guhA and

siriya thiruvadi?

vAnamAmalai padmanAbhan

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaktas,

 

Shri Mani, in his post, has referred to the story of Jada Bharata. I thought

some members might be interested in knowing more about this. Swami Vivekananda

has given a complete account in his narration of the story; those interested may

read it at:

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume~4/lectures~and~discour\

ses/the~story~of~jada~bharata.htm

 

In my last posting, I had referred to Narsi Mehta's definition of a true

Vaishnava.

An important characteristic mentioned by Narsi in the second stanza of his

vaishnava jana to is:

Nindaa na kare keni re, - does not condemn anyone,

as was mentioned by Shri Mani (Judge not).

 

Dasan,

Krishnaswamy

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImate Gopala desika mahadesikaya nama:

 

The adjective "angry" is inappropriate for a true

Vaishnavite.

 

Sri Balaji is quite justified in getting shocked to

observe some person whom he "thought" was a true

Vaishnavite.

 

adiyen got angry at one of the functions organised

by a particular group. (I will leave out the reason

for getting angry). I was feeling sorry to have shown

this "bhavam" since I feel except Bhakti no other

emotion should be shown in Perumal Sannidhi. I mentioned

this to one of my spritual friends. He said that 'to get

angry' is all right when 'adharma' is done. He pacified me

saying that 'I got angry' against 'adharma' and that was

OK.

 

So Sri Balaji, I think it is OK to get angry in this instance.

We have to 'grow up' and face the reality in the world - it

is filled people of all sorts including those who preach one

thing and practice another.

 

Lakshmana dasan

 

bhakti-list, "Mani Varadarajan <mani@a...>"

<mani@a...> wrote:

> > In a recent

> > function attended by my appa of a member of he said he

> > was shocked to see the parents of the bidegroom eating

> > food in both the hands and ever thing against the so

>

> But yet I am not surprised at the shock of you

> and your father. This is the sad state of our

> community when orthodoxy is judged principally

> on the basis of ritual cleanliness and not on

> internal qualities and formal anusthanam of some

> form or another is the primary measure of one's

> Vaishnavatva.

>

> Mani

> [writing as a participant and not as moderator]

[Guest guest]

Shrimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

Dear Shri Swamis,

My pranams to all. I apologize in the beginning itself, if, even by

mistake, my post offends anyone.

 

I have similar thoughts as that of Shri Keshav.

 

"Cleanliness is next to godliness" - self explanatory.

 

"Yathaa Raja tathaa praja" - The way the king is, so are the people.

 

Thirukkural-

"Puranthooimai neeran amayum aganthooimai

Vaimayaal Kaanap padum" (External cleansing is done by water while

the internal cleansing is done by truthfulness). This is what we do

as we start the Sandhyavandhanam('Apohishta mayo bhuva').

 

"Solluthal Yaarkkum Eliya! Ariyavam

Solliya Vannam Seyal" (Everybody can tell everything very easily.

But, it is exactly opposite when it comes to standing by the same i.e

it is the most difficult part to implement what we say.)

 

I guess, if my understanding is right, the question posed by the

writer Shri Balaji was that - aren't we supposed to set an example

for our next generation. I feel that, he was angry and he has every

right to be so. And if it were a meagre outburst, it is the job of

moderator to review and reject the message. If the moderator has

approved it, I feel that, there is some reason why it has been. I

feel that (at least I take it that way), the message has been

approved only because, everyone would see one point or the other in

what Shri Balaji has said, instead of analysing his emotions.

 

I feel that the following are the post's main points:

- Whether we should really set an example for our next generation or

not

- Whether we should not give any excuse, rather try to follow our

anushtanams at our best or not

- More than those who preach, it is those who stand by the same are

the ones who contributes more to maintaining and saving the

tradition. When one asks a question like "How could I do

sandhyavandhanam even when I am working 18 hours a day", it is very

difficult for a person who just preaches about it. But, when a person

who works for 18 hours and still follows the anushtanam is present,

the meagre presence will convincs 1000s of people that it is possible

to do so and that they can't give any lame excuses. I think, the idea

behind this post, not being bothered about whether it was intentional

or not, is a good one. It kept me thinking for couple of days in

fact!

 

These are open questions. I myself was shocked by these. I am one of

those who gives lots of excuses for not following anushtanams. But

the post, really made me think. I am a software engineer and I work

at a client's place. If I don't go in the formal dress, I would not

be paid my salary nor my respect. Whether I can do my job or not, is

secondary. If in lowkeeka life this is so, am I not supposed to

follow what my purvacharya's did. Or atleast, shouldn't I be thinking

about that all the time rather than trying to convince myself with

excuses. I ended up deciding that the tradition gives so much

flexibility that I tend to give lame excuses whilst my jobs won't

give me my daily bread(that is what I had been thinking as the truth,

while it is not so) if I don't follow the professional tradition.

There was an iyengar boy whom I know, who has some bad habits. Couple

of his friends tease me when they hear from me that I don't have any

of those habits. What they tease me about is that every iyengar guy

is no different from that boy it seems. People tend to generalize

very easily. "Oru paanai sotrukku oru soru padam"(To check if the

entire rice in the vessel has boiled well or not, it is enough to

check one single grain). So, even if we don't follow the anushtanams,

it is a better idea not to expose our anti-traditional habits amidst

the society that would easily brand the traditional people based on

this single exposure.

 

As I mentioned before, these are open questions and I feel these kind

of questions should come out in some way or other to give me an

oppurtunity to think. I feel, we(sorry to generalize, but...) should

keep wondering or atleast think pretty well regarding, why we don't

follow the traditions, at least to the smallest extent possible (only

for those who don't follow at all).

 

I have no comments on anyone else's comments. I just wanted to share

only what I thought/think. And all that I have mentioned above holds

for me. If it holds for the reader, it is meagrely coincidental.

 

As I mentioned in my first statement, if anyone is offended by any

means, kindly accept my sincere apologies.

 

Sarva Aparadhaan Kshamasva

 

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jaamaataram Munim

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

Lakshmi Narasimhan

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaktas,

 

This is with reference to Shri Ashok Krishnamurti's extremely courteous, very

well-drafted reply to what he perceived in my post as a sign of disapproval of

rituals. Far from it, I agree with him wholeheartedly on the need for and

helpfulness of rituals in any spiritual journey. His statement is well supported

by the Upanishads which warns us that the path is like a razor's edge, strewn

with difficulties and difficult to tread and therefore, we need guidance from an

excellent Acharya:

 

utthishThata jaagrata

praapya varaan nibodhata

kshurasya dhaara nishitaa duratyayaa

durgam pathastat kavayo vadanti

 

The point I wished to convey, however, was only that the reverse need not be

true i.e., one who is not committed to such practices is not a spiritual person.

 

When I made the statement that Narsi Mehta "laid emphasis on the inner traits of

a saintly person, not the outer garb of dress or the rituals and other similar

practices", I did not intend to suggest that rituals were unnecessary or had no

useful place in spiritual practice. The crucial words were "laid emphasis", as

was noticed in the original article by the "angry vaishnavite" ( I am truly

sorry for continuing to use this sobriquet; I suppose we need to change this

reference, as suggested by another contributor).

 

In somewhat similar manner, Bhaja Govindam has many slokas which emphasise that

mere practices without inner awareness are not conducive to liberation. They

were not intended to suggest the contrary: that the practices mentioned in the

slokas were unnecessary or unhelpful for a spiritual aspirant.

 

Below are three of these slokas where outward signs hev been de-emphasized;

the translation is by Shri C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) which I have copied from

the web-site: http://www.hindubooks.org/books_by_rajaji/bhaja_govindam/

jaTilo muNDii luJNchhitakeshaH

kaashhaayaambara-bahukR^ita-veshhaH .

pashyannapi cana pashyati muuDhaH

udara-nimittaM bahukR^ita-veshhaH .. 14..

 

The ascetic with the matted locks, the man with the shaven head, he who has

pulled out his hair, the man of the kaashaya robe, they have eyes but fail to

see. All these are disguises to cheat the world and fill the belly.

 

Renouncing is not a matter of external show. It is a victory that has to be won

in the mind. But what is it that we see in the world? We see the shaven head or

the long matted hair and such other outward signs. If the desires burning in the

heart are not quenched, these external forms mean nothing. The show of

renunciation is quite often a means to fill the belly. 'Why this vain show? Give

it up', says Sri Sankara.

 

kurute gaN^gaa-saagara-gamanaM

vrata-paripaalanam-athavaa daanam.h .

GYaana-vihinaH sarvamatena

muktiM na bhajati janma-shatena .. 17..

 

All religions and creeds stress the need for true knowledge and wisdom.

 

A man may bathe in the holy Ganga or the sea. He may observe every austerity; he

may make gifts lavishly. Yet, all religions agree that none of these will get

him liberation even in a hundred lives if he does not acquire true knowledge.

 

A person may do pilgrimage to holy places, bathe in the sea at Rameshwaram and

go through a hundred vows and austerities. But if he has not attained Jnaana, he

cannot get rid of the great Delusion. These holy baths and austerities will bear

fruit only if the mind is pure and the heart is filled with devotion. Else, they

are all in vain.

 

When it is said that one without knowledge cannot attain liberation it is not

knowledge arising from book learning that is meant. It refers to the state of

mind that is free from attachments. Book learning is one thing; true knowledge

is quite another.

 

yogarato vaa bhogaratovaa

saN^garato vaa saN^gaviihinaH .

yasya brahmaNi ramate chittaM

nandati nandati nandatyeva .. 19..

 

When one is practicing yoga, or enjoying some pleasures, whether in company or

in solitude, if one's mind finds delight in communication with the Supreme

Brahman, such a one is indeed truly happy.

 

Pleasure is a state of the mind. The satisfaction springing from sense-enjoyment

is pleasure of one kind. But the bliss of felt union with God is some-thing

different. It is a joy that knows no qualification or diminution. Sri

Maanikkavaachagar says to his heart as to a honeybee:

 

"O, my good bee, sip not the honey from little flowers and waste your energy.

There is the Divine Dancer for you to meditate on or see His form in the

temples. What is the use of the sensual pleasures of the flesh. The flower that

is God exudes the honey of supreme bliss. Drink that honey, O my heart. When you

sing His praise, my very bones melt in the honey of the bliss that flows from

Him."

 

Dasan,

M.K. Krishnaswamy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear learned ones and elders,

 

Namaskarams.

 

Since some 2-3 days iam following this interesting discussion.

I have observed in the discussions that the main issue raised by the

member(who started this thread) is being clubbed with another issue and

posted as an reply.

 

The member's point is clear.: whether the 'Sampradaya' or traditional

outward practices be encouraged or not.And if its not so..he wanted to know

the opinion of the members.

 

Some of the members replied back saying that mere practices without inner

awareness are not conducive to liberation. THIS it self is a different

thread which the learned group can takeup for discussion.

 

But we need to be clear on what we are going to do for making the present

and future generations follow a bit of healthy traditional practices

(healthy and nonhealthy is another thread).

 

I apologize if, even by mistake, my post offends anyone.

 

DaasanuDaasa..Ramakrishna.

[Guest guest]

> Pranam to all,

>

>

> I agree with all that that external matters do not disqualify the Lord's

> grace etc. But simply speaking, eating with both hands is unhygenic and

> spreads echil/jootha. While I don't think that disqualifies one from God,

> but that gentleman who ate with both hands should be reprimanded for his

> behaviour and if he contiues in this fashion , simply avoid taking food

> prepared in his home. By the way, avoiding echil should apply to

> all human beings (Not just a particular sect, caste, or religion). While

I do not think he or his relatives should be banned

> from the list, etc.; it surprises me that many Hindus (even the ones who

are

> religious) flaunt the rules of echil/jootha. Remember cleanliness is next

> to Godliness (internal and external). Think if we were talking about an

adult

> urinating or defecating like a child before potty-training age, I do not

> think we would be giving any analogies to puraanic stories, etc.

>

> Ravi Chandrasekhara MD

[Guest guest]

Priya Vaishnava Bandhus,

I think the comments from Sri Pradeep below is the right answer to this

discussion.

 

In this Kaliyuga just 'Nama Sankeerthanam of the god' without any prejudice

is the only way to attain Moksha.

 

Sreevaishnava Alwars, Acharyas, Vaishnava Saints like Sri. Purandaradasa,

Sri. Kanakadasa and Sri. Thyagaraja all preached that, in this Kaliyuga

chanting God's name humbly is the only sadana for Moksha to all irrespective

of caste/religion/sex.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

Sampige Srinivasa

 

[ A small but significant clarification: in the Sri Vaishnava tradition

nama sankirtana is praised as an indispensable part of the devotional

life. Sri Parashara Bhattar writes that calling out to Bhagavaan is

as natural as a child calls out to its mother; hence his recommendation

that everyone practice nama sankirtana in the form of reciting

Sri Vishnu Sahasranama, etc., as an easy means of developing devotion

and keeping the mind focused on God. Yet, despite this praise of

nama sankirtana, it is *not* accepted as a "way" of attaining moksha;

it is helpful in engendering bhakti as well as itself part of the

life of the prapanna but cannot be declared an independent means

to moksha. Strictly speaking only bhakti-yoga and prapatti are

paths to moksha according to the Sri Vaishnava tradition.

This is discussed at length by Sri Vedanta Desika in Sri Rahasya

Traya Saara. -- Moderator ]

[Guest guest]

SrimathE Ranga Ramanuja Mahadesikaya Nama:

 

SrimathE Nigamaantha Mahadesikaya Nama:

 

SrimathE Ramanujaya Nama:

 

SrI:

 

As our Mani Varadarajan swami wrote NAma bhajans is not an upAya for moksha. But

there are some pramanams that say that Nama bhajans and visit to holy places

result in Moksha. Swami Desikan in Srimad Rahasya Rahasya traya saaram gives a

'samAdhanam' for this by saying that they will lead to moksha

INDIRECTLY('paramparaiyAga'). It will remove the moksha pratibhandaga pApams and

some time or other will give Acharya sambandham. AchArya will then guide one to

do bhakti -yoga or prapatti. Undoubtedly for akinchanaas like us prapatti is the

upaya.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AdiyEn,

 

PadhukadAsan.

 

Aravindalochanadasaanudasan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more