A Humble Correction to Mr GK Ramakrishnan's mail ...

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

Thanks for your mails.

 

I merely presented what my spiritual master Srila Prabhupada has explained

in his books

with regard to the Archa Murti.

 

Mr Ramakrishnan, one thing though - we do not worship idols as Archavataram.

I would humbly venture to correct your goodself in this regard. We worship

the Archavataram

or the Deity of the Lord. Idol comes from ideational or an idea based on

sentiment. This may be the view

of certain Maayavaadins such as the Swamiji of the Ramakrishna Mission, but

the vaishnavic conclusion

is that the Lord's forms wherever they may be manifest be it as a maanasa

roopa, or a roopa made of metal, jewels, stone, etc. is not verily these

objects. It is verily the Lord Himself since in the ultimate issue there is

no difference between the Lord and His form, wherever It may be manifested

in as much as the Lord is present wherever Harinama is chanted because there

is no difference between Him and His Name. The Padma Purana says in this

connection,

 

nama chintamani krishnaha

chaitanya rasa vigraha

purna shuddho nitya muktaha

abhinnatvaan naama naaminoh

 

There is no bhinna or separation between the naama (name) and the possessor

thereof (naami) when it comes to the Lord.

Likewise with form. We may see a form of Parthasarathi on a Gita book and

think this is just paper. But no ! a pure devotee sees the Lord in the

picture and it is a fact that the Lord by dint of the presence of His form

is present there, but we lack purification to see things in that way.

Otherwise, how could Sripad Ramanujacharya speak to Varadaraja Perumal ? Sri

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was in so much ecstacy seeing Lord Jagannatha at Puri

that he was not able to even utter "Jaganaatha" but only "Jag", "Jag". But

the Acharyas are not fools to talk to some stone or to an icon that merely

represents an impersonal God. They verily worship and relate to the Lord who

has appeared out of His causeless mercy to allow us to serve Him. Otherwise

how could conditioned entities like us serve the Lord who is transcendental

to the gross and subtle senses in terms of His personal presence ?

 

Therefore, there is no question of idol as though Brahman is impersonal and

we fashion a form for it to be represented by an idol. As such, archavataram

and "idol" are diametrically opposed to each other and never the twain shall

meet.

 

Hare Krishna !

 

 

Your servant and ever well-wisher,

R. Jai Simman

Singapore

 

> Message: 2

> Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:44:32

> "G K Ramakrishnan" <gkrama

> Re: Idol and Icon are not accurate - Deity is more suitable ...

>

> Dear Friends,

>

> I enjoyed immensely Mr.Jaisimman's comments.We have a great tradition of

> worshipping idols as Archavatharam.You will be glad to know that

> Swami.Ranganathananda,the current President of Sri.Ramakrishna Order made

> this aspect the theme of his speech on the occasion of inaguration of

> Universal Temple at Chennai.

>

> Best Regards=GKRamakrishnan/Kuwait.

>

>

>

>

>

> ______________________

> ______________________

>

> Message: 3

> 23 Feb 2001 12:30:15 IST

> Chakravartula Krishna <chakravartula

> Re: [idol and Icon are not accurate - Deity is more suitable ...]

>

> Sri Jai Simman pranamams,

>

> Very well said. Adiyen is in full aggrement with you. We Srivaishnavas

only

> worship the diety, not the icon or idol.

>

> Adiyen,

> Gopi Krishna Dasan

>

>

>

> ______________________

> ______________________

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Jai Simman,

 

Sub: Archa Murthi

 

I found the following in a collection of Quotes that I maintain. I have not

retained the reference to the original source. Perhaps it is the Gospel of

Ramakrishna. The quote follows; it may be of interest to members of the

group:

 

M.K. Krishnaswamy

" Ramakrishna Paramahansa: Do you like to meditate upon God as `with form'

or `without form'?

 

Disciple: I should like to meditate upon God as the Formless rather than

as the Being `with form'.

 

Master: That is good. There is no harm in looking at Him from this or that

point of view. Yes, to think of Him as the Formless Being is quite right.

But take care you do not run away with the idea that that view alone is true

and all others false. Meditating upon Him as a Being `with form' is equally

right. But you must hold to your particular point of view until you see

God, when everything will become clear.

 

Disciple: Then, Sir, one may hold that God is `with form'. But surely He

is not the earthen images that are worshipped?

 

Master: But why should you call it an earthen image? Surely the Image

Divine is made of the Spirit?

 

Disciple: But is it not one's duty Sir, to make it clear to those who

worship images that God is not the same as the clay forms they worship, and

that in worshipping they should keep God Himself in view and not the clay

images?

 

Master: It has grown to be a fashion with you Calcutta people, to think and

talk only of `lecturing' and `bringing others to light'. Pray how are you

going to bring light unto your own self? Eh? Who are you to teach others?

The Lord of the Universe will teach mankind if need be -- that Lord who has

made the Sun and the Moon, men and brutes, the Lord who has made things for

them to live upon, who has made parents to tend and rear them, -- that Lord

who has done so many things, will He not do something to bring them also to

light? Surely, if need be, He will. He lives in the temple of the human

body. He knows our inmost thoughts. If there is anything wrong in image

worship, does He not know that all the worship is meant for Him? He will be

pleased enough to accept it knowing that it was meant for Him alone. Why

must you worry yourself about things above you and beyond your reach? Seek

to know and revere God. Love God. That is the duty nearest you.

 

You were talking of `images made of clay'. Well, there often comes a

necessity of worshipping even such images as these. God Himself has

provided these various forms of worship. The Lord has done all this -- to

suit different men in different stages of knowledge.

 

The mother so arranges the food for her children that every one gets what

agrees with him. One gets rich pilav with the fish, while she gives only a

little soup to another who is of weak digestion; she makes a sauce of sour

tamarind for the third, fries the fish for the fourth and so on; exactly as

it happens to agree with the stomach. Don't you see?

 

Disciple: Yes Sir, now I do, The Lord is to be worshipped in the image of

clay as spirit by the beginner. The devotee, as he advances, may worship

him independently of the image.

 

Master: Yes. And again when he sees God, he realizes that everything --

image and all -- is a manifestation of the Spirit. To him the Image is made

of Spirit, not of clay. God is Spirit."

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear SrI Jai Simman and other devotees,

 

> I merely presented what my spiritual master Srila Prabhupada has explained

> in his books

> with regard to the Archa Murti.

 

I know that you are a follower of SrI BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi

and you sincerly try to reflect his views in your writings.

While I am not against you following the views of that

SampradAya, I would like to remind you that this list has the

basis of SrI VaishNava SampradAya. Kindly read the following

on what SrI-VaishNavas has to say on the philosophical

issues which you had written.

 

The Sanskrit term "Vigraha" is very much used to denote

archA-avatAram of PerumAL {Like "Vigraha AarAdhanam" etc}.

"Idol" is its English equivalent. There is nothing wrong

in that word as such to denote PerumAL. But some modern thinkers

started criticizing "Idol Worship" etc and the name "Idol" got

involved in such issues while referring to PerumAL => Usage

of this word became mis-leading. Thus, we may resort to other

terms.

 

>It is verily the Lord Himself since in the ultimate issue there is

> no difference between the Lord and His form, wherever It may be manifested

> in as much as the Lord is present wherever Harinama is chanted because there

> is no difference between Him and His Name.

 

Earlier, you wrote on these lines in another SrI VaishNava list

also. I had written few mails explaining from Brahma-SUtras

(+SrI-BhAshya) and other pramANas that Lord is different

from His divine body which is another tattva{reality} called

Suddha-Sattva. While you made a blanket statement that these

things are "mAyAvAda" etc, I had explained as to how

Bhagavad RAmAnuja follows Sage VyAsa and Upanishads

correctly regarding this issue. I also enlisted some

books for your reference.

 

Still, you have written the very same thing probably

thinking that your understanding is same as that

of SrI-VaishNava sampradAya {and probably forgot everything

of what I wrote earlier}.

 

There is a lot of difference between Lord's picture and

His archA-avatAram like either Vigraha Or SAlagrAma-MUrti.

The former is only a representation of Him with His divine

form {the paper etc being prakruti only} and the latter is

verily Himself with the suddha-sattva form {either due

to consecration by Aagamas Or taken by Lord Himself on His

own}. Lord eternally has divine form at SrI-VaikuNTham. The

archa-avatAram is the descent of that Para-VAsudEva {avatAram =

descent) in making the materialistic forms made of Gold

etc as Suddha-Sattva because of the procedures of the Aagama

SAstras lovingly followed by His devotee and assumes that

form out of abundant mercy for all the devotees to worship,

serve and benifit.

 

SwAmi dESikan quotes from AgamAs and says that, the excessive

amount of milk when mixed with water, still remains as milk

( eg: 10 litres of milk + 1 litre of water gives 11

litres of milk ie. the milk and water are so well

mixed that the difference between milk and water

can't be found). Similarly, the thirumEni of PerumAL

in arcAvatAram has excessive suddha sattvam mixed with

matter(prakruti) such as gold , and we shouldn't

distinguish between suddha sattvam and the gold present.

Thus, arcAvatAra thirumEni is suddha sattavm only (

similar to how 11 litres of milk is referred to as

milk, though technically 1 litre of water is present).

 

Actually, its a very great sin to view the archa-thirumEni

as something made up of some materialistic substance.

 

One important siddhAnta is that even during the advanced stages

of bhakti-yoga like Para-bhakti, the yOgi has only the

darSana-samAna sAkshAtkAram ie. not actual sAkshAtkAram

but mental image of Lord acquired by his yoga attains a very

good stage, which is similar to the actual suddha-satva thirumEni

viSishTa SrIman nArAyaNa, but not the same.

 

I am not interested in any further discussion etc due to

my time constraints and other important commitments. You can

refer the books for your further doubts. If you are interested,

I can send you an article of mine that was written on this

issue.

 

I would like to conclude reminding the 17th verse {ViSvAtiSAyi..}

of VaradarAja Pan~chAsat by SrI VEdAnta DESika, which beautifully

states {in a characteristic style of SwAmi DESikan} that (even)

Bhakti-Yogins meditating upon Lord gets the doubt/confusion

as to whether the divine form is Either You Or Yours, as

both are declared in VEdas to be of the same nature as that

of jn~AnAnanda-maya.

 

While the two are actually different in tattva, Lord VaradarAja's

divine body's mAhAtmyam {greatness} is also something unimaginable

--conveys SwAmi DESikan. Thank God that unparalleled PUrvAchAryas

of our sampradAyam like BhagavAn RAmAnuja and BhagavAn VEdAnta

DESika have very well explained the intricacies of SAstras

and I am no more in such a confusion as even other great yogins

might have :-) {On a lighter note ...But the hidden message

about our PUrvAchAryas is true}.

 

SwAmi DESikan thiruvaDigaLE SaraNam

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

[Guest guest]

--- Anand K Karalapakkam <kgk wrote:

> SrI:

> SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH

>

> namO nArAyaNa!

>

>I would like to remind you that this

> list has the

> basis of SrI VaishNava SampradAya. Kindly read the

> following

> The Sanskrit term "Vigraha" is very much used

to

> denote

> archA-avatAram of PerumAL {Like "Vigraha

> AarAdhanam" etc}.

> "Idol" is its English equivalent. There is nothing

> wrong

> in that word as such to denote PerumAL.

 

Is it not that the word "Idol" represents ideation?

Perhaps, you should go to the Latin root for the word

to extract the real meaning (jest like we go to the

Sanskrit root for our words) then perhaps you will be

able to conclude if we couyld use it to denote God (I

accept only one God Lord Sriman Narayana). I feel that

there is everything wrong in using the word "IDOL."

 

Yes, in the age of Kali yuga, when a majority of the

so called Sri Vaishnavas are clebrating the mid night

of January first (Christian New Year) as their own New

Year, and celebrating the Christian Millianeium as

their own sending Christian Millianium greetings to

one another (even on the internet), I guess God could

be reduced to that of an "IDOL."

 

Do you go to a respected Swami and call him "He Guy?"

However, there are some of us either Sri Vaishnavas or

not who might feel it insulting to refer God's Sri

Vigraham as "Idol."

 

> modern thinkers

> started criticizing "Idol Worship" etc and the

> name "Idol" got

> involved in such issues while referring to PerumAL

> => Usage

> of this word became mis-leading. Thus, we may

> resort to other terms.

 

> There is a lot of difference between Lord's

> picture and

> His archA-avatAram like either Vigraha Or

> SAlagrAma-MUrti.

> The former is only a representation of Him with

> His divine

> form {the paper etc being prakruti only} and the

> latter is

> verily Himself with the suddha-sattva form {either

> due

> to consecration by Aagamas Or taken by Lord

> Himself on His

> own}.

 

Are you saying that the Archa Murthy in my home is not

God or does not have the same power. Isopanishad

declares: "Purnam Ada Purnamidam..." The Archa Murthy

has the same power as in the Nitya Vibhoothi. When he

descends, he descds with all his power. How about a

guy

who does not have a moorthy in the house or he is

travelling, and he has only a photo calender. Suppose,

he does arch to that form. Do you think that God does

not accept that archa?

 

In the service of Lord Sri Venkateswara, I remain,

 

Sincerely

Narender Reddy

reddynp

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./

[Guest guest]

SrI:

srimathe ramanujAya namaha

srimathe nigamantha maha desikaya namaha

 

Dear Sri Narender Reddy,

 

Thank you for you inputs. You have asked good questions regarding the usage of

the term idol. I do not intend to be a part of the discussion on this topic,

but you had mentioned in your email that :

 

>Yes, in the age of Kali yuga, when a majority of the>so called Sri Vaishnavas

are celebrating the mid night>of January first (Christian New Year) as their

own New>Year, and celebrating the Christian Millennium as>their own sending

Christian Millennium greetings to>one another (even on the internet), I guess

God could>be reduced to that of an "IDOL."

Ahem, I stand to differ. First of all There is nothing called the "Christian New

Year" as you opine. It is true that the earth takes 365 odd days to complete one

revolution around the sun. This one complete Revolution is taken as the standard

"year". There is nothing Christian about it. It is scientifically valid. This

was not suggested by Saint.X or Saint.Y or Saint.Z.

 

It was Aryabhatta, the ancient Hindu Mathematician who was the first to

Calculate how many days the earth takes to travel around the Sun. He calculated

it to be 365 days 6 hours 12 minutes 30 seconds. The standard taken now is 365

days and 6 hours.

>From this it is clear that our pUrvAcharyas had solid knowledge of mathematics.

 

You may wish to visit the link on Aryabhatta:

http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Aryabhata_I.html

 

***The Calendar at present is a modification of the calculations of Aryabhatta.

It was first modified by the Romans, which is why the months of July and August

are named after Roman Emperors. The emperors are Julius Caesar and Augustus

Caesar Respectively. For your information, The Romans were not Christians,

infact some roman dictator ordered the persecution of Jesus.****

 

The contributions of our pUrvAcharyas to the field of mathematics are like

pillars supporting the roof. It is only due to our acharyas that there are

advances in all field of science known to humanity. Without mathematics, you

would not be reading this email message on your computer screen, pay credit

card bills, or click on the mouse which will be in your right hand now.

 

It is noteworthy to mention Pierre Laplace quotations on Hindu Mathematics:

 

"The ingenious method of expressing every possible number using a set of ten

symbols (each symbol having a place value and an absolute value) emerged in

India. The idea seems so simple nowadays that its significance and profound

importance is no longer appreciated. Its simplicity lies in the way it

facilitated calculation and placed arithmetic foremost amongst useful

inventions. the importance of this invention is more readily appreciated when

one considers that it was beyond the two greatest men of Antiquity, Archimedes

and Apollonius"

 

Laplace implies that there can be nothing great than Hindu mathematics.

I highly suggest you visit the following link to learn more about Hindu mathematics.

 

http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Indian_mathematics.html

 

kavi taarkika simhaaya kalyaana gunashaaline

srimathe venkateshaya vedanta gurave namaha

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Daasan,

 

Malolan Cadambi,

Dept. of Electrical Engineering,

Iowa State University.

 

 

-

Narender Reddy

 

Thursday, March 01, 2001 5:27 PM

Re: A Humble Correction to Mr GK Ramakrishnan's mail ...

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImatE nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear members,

 

I am posting this article to explain the tenets of SrI VaishNavism

regarding this issue again, since some views of Neo-Advaitins like

SrI RAmakrishNa, the master of SrI VivEkAnanda, which are not

supported by SAstras were posted earlier :

 

Lord NArAyaNa is as such an aatma ("spirit" as used by some),

and is all-pervading ie.vibhu. Hence He is omni-present. But,

He while seated as Para-VAsudEva at SrI VaikuNTham also descends

to the material world with His divine suddha-sattva form for the

pleasure of His devotees + lOka-kshEmam {thru upadEsam of SAstras

etc}. One such avatAram is the archA-avatAram, which is for

the devotees to have very easy direct loving reciprocation with

Him, serve Him, develop bhakti / perform Prapatti etc. It is

through this avatAram that Lord directly makes Himself available

to His devotees. The archa-avatAram is the object of worship

which is non-different from Para-VAsudEva at SrI VaikuNTham.

As explained earlier, a picture/photo/doll etc representing Lord

is not archa-avatAram due to the lack of consecration as per

Aagama SAstras. However, since it resembles Lord as He is in

other avatArams, the pictures etc are very sacred and devotees

gets the oppurtunity to meditate/reciprocate lovingly with

thoughts filled upon Lord SrIman NArAyaNa. There are many specific

ways of performing worship to Archa-avatArams - Be it either as

SAlagrAma Or Vigraha.

 

Lord's Form is made up of Suddha-Sattva and not merely made of

materialistic substances like clay. Suddha-Sattva material as

such is highly luminous - the radiation of light from Lord's

thirumEni (divine form) is described very well in various

Scriptures. But many do not see this luminosity from the

thirumEni of Lord in archA-avatAram because, its finally

Lord who makes a person to see His divine Form completely,

based upon the qualifications {in terms of bhakti} present

in that devotee. While the likes of AzhwArs were able to

cognize the suddha-sattva thirumEni of Lord with its multitude

splendour, the likes of me can only cognize whatever

Lord chooses to reveal. The ardent devotees of Lord would have

certainly experienced the splendor of Lord's form during His

vibhava-avatAras like that of RAma and KrishNa, while the

likes of DuryOdhana could never experience it.

 

ParamAtma, who is characterized by Satyatvam,jn~Anatvam,anantatvam

etc {Which is also called as Divya-Aatma-Swaroopam <DAS>},

eternally has a form as at SrI-VaikuNTham. Those who claim that

they meditate upon God without His divine form, should actually

be meditating upon DAS characterized by Satyatvam etc. But, its

almost an impossibility, especially for the people of this

progressing kali-yuga.

 

The penultimate chapter of SrI VishNu PurANam describes

the various stages of bhakti yOga, wherein the yOgi starts

with the meditation of PerumAL <DAS> alongwith divine body +

ornaments + weapons, and slowly reduces one by one {weapons,

ornaments etc} in the focus of meditation and finally attains the

*sAkshAtkAram* {realization} of the divyAtma-swaroopam as

"satyam,jn~Anam,anantam,nirmalam etc" without the divine body.

Only at this stage of Bhakti Yoga, can one claim that he sees God

everywhere. Then, the yOgi can finish the upAsana of his liking

from the Upanishads and attain moksham - eternal Bhagavad

anubhavam and kai~nkaryam to the Divya-Dampati.

 

But, even the performance of jn~Ana yOga is almost impossible

these days {not for merely ordinary people; To also those

who are well versed in SAstras, VairAgya,bhakti etc}. While one

can know that God is everywhere because of the teachings by

SAstras, its extremly difficult to meditate upon and that too

to attain the SAkshAtkAra {Full realization}. The pre-requisite

for meditating upon the "infinite" Lord is the "SAkshAtkAram"

upon the finite JIvAtma, which is also "jn~AnAnanda" in its

swaroopa like Lord. The twin disciplines of karma-jn~Ana yOga

should appropriately be practised to perfection to meditate upon

JIvAtma and attain its sAkshAtkAram. The intermediete step involved

in this process is the continuous meditation upon Lord's

Divya-ma~ngaLa-vigraha {Divine Form made of Suddha-Sattva},

which burns the sins that obstruct the yOgi from attaining

JIvAtma SAkshAtkAram {For more details, refer Bhagavad GIta} -

Here, the focus is not upon the meditation upon DAS, but on the

thirumEni of Lord, which by itself is "SubhAshrayam". Only after

attaining JIvAtma SAkshAtkAram,which is beyond the reach of

almost everyone at present, can one start the process of

bhakti-yoga.

 

Its just a fancy, if one claims that he is meditating upon God

without Form, while he has no idea of what is meditating upon

"jn~Anatvam", "anantatvam" etc aspects of God - While for

that matter, he would not see even Lord's thirumEni will

its multitude splendour in the first case.

--------

 

Lord is always personal because of His infinite kalyAna guNAs.

Just because Either He is all pervading Or He is different

from His Divine Form, it does not mean that He is impersonal.

The infinite qualities like mercy, easy accesibility to devotees

etc of Lord NArAyaNA are different from the qualities of His form

like fragrance of His body, shape of His eyes, ears etc. Some

refer to Lord NArAyaNA alongwith His suddha sattva body as

"Personal God", and while referring Him (DAS) directly, they use

he terminology "impersonal" (ie. referring to Lord alone, and

not along with His suddha sattva body). But, some refer to the

"nirvisEsha Brahman" (attributeless Brahman) of advaitins

also as Brahman, which is impersonal. So, this may cause

some terminology confusion; but from the context, one

can understand what the author is trying to explain.

 

It is also to be noted that meditation on DAS ie. Lord NArAyaNa

which is characterized by many attributes is completely different

from the theory proposed by mAyAvAdins regarding the

meditation on Brahman which is nirviSEsha (attributeless ) .

------

 

Teaching SAstras unto others is not at all a forbidden act in

SAstras. On the contrary it is regarded as the highest

form of service to the human kind and also Lord {Refer Bhagavad

GIta's conclusion by Lord KrishNa <18.68-69> wherein such a

person is regarded as the most dearmost / One who performs

best service unto Him ; Refer PradhAna Satakam of SrI VEdAnta

DESika in declaring this as the most important form of

service of Lord etc}. But, only the issues like the

qualifications of one who is teaching and the one who is

being taught, the subject matter which is taught, the mind-set

with which it is being taught etc are the issues that needs to

be taken care off appropriately.

 

AzhwAr, yemperumAnAr, dESikan thiruvaDigaLE SaraNam

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan

KrushNArpaNam.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Narendra Prabhu.

 

Also, one point I am realising --- I have sent at least a good 4 mails

on this issue but only the first 2 have appeared. Obviously there is some

uncalled

for censorship to stifle what someone sees as external intervention into

self-interpreted sectarian attitudes

going on here.

 

what can be done ?

 

those who encourage discussion are also the culprits in curtailing the

discussion when they perceive

an expansion beyond the self0imposed boundaries they have set for these.

 

Hare Krishna !

 

 

dasan,

R. Jai Simman

Singapore

 

-

<>

<>

Monday, March 05, 2001 4:58 PM

Digest Number 48

 

 

>

> Srirangasri-

>

>

> ------

>

> There are 3 messages in this issue.

>

> Topics in this digest:

>

> 1. Vol.I/024 d/03/03/01

> Ramanbil

> 2.

> Narender Reddy <reddynp

> 3. Re: http://www.radioramanuja.com/ - Prabhandam On-Line

> sriharirag

>

>

> ______________________

> ______________________

>

> Message: 1

> Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:36:15 -0000

> Ramanbil

> Vol.I/024 d/03/03/01

>

> SrIman! SrI Ranga Sriyam anubadravam anudhinam samvardhaya/

> SrIman! SrI Ranga Sriyam anubadravam anudhinam samvardhaya//

> KAvEri VardhathAm kAlE, kAlE varshathu vAsava:/

> SrI RanganAthO jayathu SrI Ranga SrIs cha VardhathAm//

> =====================================================

> SRI RANGA SRI VOL. I / 024 DATED 3rd March 2001

> =====================================================

> EDITORIAL:

> We are glad to present the 24th Issue of "Sri Ranga Sri"

> In this issue, we present Part 6 of "Greatness Of Bhagavad Ramanuja

> Darsanam" dealing with "Other Differences"

> =====================================================

> [Please read the note and request given while introducing the series.

> If anything has been expressed forcefully it is only to bring home

> the point more graphically and is not meant to hurt anyone's feelings]

> Dasoham

> Anbil Ramaswamy

> ==========================================

> Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam (GRD 6)

> (Other Differences)

> =========================================-

> SECTION 3D: "TRANSITORINESS "

> SECTION 3E: " TRUTH EMERGES FROM UNTRUTH"

> SECTION 3F: ARE DREAMS REAL?

> SECTION 3G: "LIBERATION THROUGH KNOWLEDGE." And

> SECTION 3H: "JEEVAN MUKTI"

> (LIBERATION WHILE LIVING IN THE PHYSICAL BODY)

> ================================================

> SECTION 3(D) TRANSITORINESS

> ====================================================

> The Advaitins hold that other than Brahman, all else is

> impermanent. Hence, not real. A mud pot when broken is no more called

> a mud pot. It WAS, but IS NOT. Hence, its existence cannot be termed

> as real. Whatever is inconstant is not real.

> Comments:

> (i) This is a much more vulnerable argument than any advanced earlier.

> *To be transitory is not to be illusory. Everything in the world is

> real and not chimerical; factual and not

> Fatuous.

>

> (ii) By this argument, Nirvisesha Advaita could label even the Vedas

> themselves to be illusory since the Vedas are said to disappear at

> the time of PraLaya, only to be brought back by Brahman at the

> beginning of the next Kalpa.

>

> This would be a blatant repudiation of the Vedas whereby even the

> SAmAnya Dharmas (ordinary duties) prescribed therein would not have

> to be observed.

>

> One will have no duties to perform and the non-performance will not

> result in any harm.

>

> (iii) When everything is unreal, no teacher could be real and no

> pupil either. As both of them are unreal, any instruction supposed to

> be transmitted from teacher to pupil would also be unreal.

>

> *The AchArya who believes his Sishya to be false cannot impart any

> knowledge nor can a Sishya believing his AchArya to be false can

> imbibe any knowledge.

>

> Where is the link between the teacher and the taught, when neither of

> them is real? *

>

> (iv) The very proposition that Brahman is shadowed by nescience is

> wholly repugnant to the very nature of Brahman - the one destroyer of

> all obscurations and shadowing.

>

> *Such a proposition is not conducive to a Sense -illumination but

> only in Sense-obscuration and Sense-Vacuation* says Kesava Iyengar

>

> (v) When ChAndOkya Upanishad says that there is one without a second,

> it does not mean the world is unreal.

> *ParamAtma and JeevAtma are real.

> The world is real.

> Vedas are real.

> And all of them are ETERNALLY real. *

> ' He is without equal' means that there is none superior to him. When

> someone says 'Arjuna is the real archer' it does not mean other

> archers are not real; it only means that they are no match to Arjuna

> in his skills of archery.

> ===================================================

> SECTION 3 (E) " TRUTH EMERGES FROM UNTRUTH"

> ==================================================

> The Advaitins talk of truth emerging from untruth - "Asatyaath Satya

> Siddhi". The untrue silver appears as true shell; from the untrue

> serpent appears the true rope.

>

> COMMENT OF OTHER SCHOOLS:

> The answer of other schools is that so long as the silver

> generates joy and the serpent produces fear - they should be

> considered real. When the Vedas say " There was neither Sat nor Asat"-

> it refers to the stage of deluge. By this, it cannot be concluded

> that the very Brahman was neither Sat nor Asat.

>

> Prof. Narayanachariar:

> "As per the Advaitins, if the mumukshu does not know untruth also, it

> is necessary to teach him first that untruth and then make him give

> it up for a higher truth!"

>

> Bhagavad RamAnuja says - 'Sruti is more kind to her followers than a

> 1000 parents together -"MAthA pithr sahasEbhyOpi vatsalathara:

> Sruti"(Gita BAshyam II-44)

>

> Why should such Sruti teach falsehood, only to be abandoned and

> prosecuted and even mislead innocent novices?"

>

> Prof. Narayanachariar-

> Now, let us see what "Sathya" means.

> Referring to the etymology of the word Satya, Bhagavad RamAnuja says

> in Vedartha Sangraha, quoting Taittriya Upanishad II-6 and

> BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad III-9-9

> Satya is a compound of Sat + Tyat which means-

> *That which is HERE NOW + that which WAS THERE THEN". In other words,

> that truth or reality as (Satyam) is what we comprehend when

> the 'disembodied' and 'embodied' forms of God are put together"*

> ===============================================

> SECTION 3 (F) ARE DREAMS REAL?

> ===============================================

> *BrihadAranyaka Upanishad categorically declares that dreams are real

> and are created by God*

>

> (i) The question arises how can we conclude that they are created by

> God? And, why not say that the JeevAtma itself could create the

> dreams?

>

> The answer is, for one thing- the JeevAtma has no power of

> creation. For another, if it had the power, it will not create

> unpleasant dreams for itself. We see tigers, fire, flood etc., in

> which the dreamer appears as a victim. No body would indulge in

> creating even in a dream such self- threatening, self- destructive

> and unpleasant experiences to one's self.

>

> Prof. Narayanachariar explains the meaning of the word "Swapiti" the

> state of dreaming or deep sleep by etymology means "returns to one's

> self (i.e.) to God as the Innermost dweller". Thus, the dreams in the

> dream state and the state of deep sleep are in the realm of ParamAtma

> and not of the JeevAtma"

>

> (ii) The dreams are real so far as the person who dreams is concerned

> and real so long as the duration of the dream. That the objects in

> the dream vanish when the person wakes up underlines the temporary-

> ness of the objects and *not that the experience itself was unreal.

> The joy, the fear, the thrill, the excitement are all real for the

> person dreaming who may even be able to remember and relate them

> subsequently.

>

> (iii) Why should God create dreams at all is the next question.

> The answer is- The JeevAtma does some small good deeds and

> some small bad ones. They are not big enough or significant

> enough to attract a palpable reward or a palpable punishment. God

> gives the JeevAtma a little pleasure through pleasant experiences in

> the dreams so that he is happy for the duration of the dream enjoying

> pleasant things; Similarly, for the small bad ones that are not

> significant enough, a mild punishment is imposed by the

> Lord by making the JeevAtma feel the pain by dreaming unpleasant

> things and unpleasant experiences for the duration of the dreams.

>

> (iv) Another question raised by Sri Chandrasekaran is that because

> sometimes dreams follow certain experiences in real life, may be as a

> consequence and continuation thereof, can it not be inferred that it

> is the jeeva through such experiences, actually creates the dream

> scenes. The answer is that that it is God who uses these impressions

> as raw materials to spin the dreams for the Jeeva to experience.

>

> (v) Another question by Sri Chandrasekaran is that children do not

> have dreams. This is not proved by Science or experience. On the

> other hand, it used to be said that the Lord shows flowers to make

> them smile happily and takes away the show of flowers when they start

> crying on missing something. Thus, even babies do experience pleasant

> and unpleasant moments, may be due to small good or bad deeds done by

> them in their earlier lives.

> ==============================================

> SECTION 3 (G) LIBERATION THROUGH KNOWLEDGE.

> ====================================================

> The Advaitins hold that once the Jeeva acquires the knowledge of its

> identity with the ParamAtma, it acquires liberation.

>

> Comment of Other Schools:

> The other schools do not accept this because mere knowledge is not

> enough.

> - Merely knowing that hunger will be abated by food,

> - Merely knowing that thirst will be quenched by drinking water,

> - Merely knowing that ailments can be cured by medication

> Cannot entail the relevant results unless action is taken to

> actually consume the food, drink or medicine respectively.

> - A mere knowledge of the route cannot take one to the

> destination unless one actually travels towards the destination.

> Knowledge is, of course, necessary as a motivating force for

> performing appropriate action of say, Karma yoga, Bhakti yoga or

> Prapatti as the case may be, which would qualify one for liberation

>

> Prof. Narayanachariar argues-

> "The knowledge of a new city one has "not actually visited", can be

> first gained through a guidebook or a map, for the exact location of

> a building or a street and on that basis when we actually visit that

> city the "experience" now gained is not cancellatory of the former

> but confirmatory only.

>

> Similarly, the photograph of a living person, which we first see, and

> then the person himself - the two experiences are corroborative and

> not contradictory.

>

> Thus for Bhagavad RamAnuja, the Paravidyas constitute a direct means

> to God-vision as understood by Veda VyAsa and his venerable father

> ParAsara. The knowledge per se does NOT lead to mOksha but opens up a

> means to be adopted for attaining mOksha"

>

> Talking about 'Knowledge', Brahma Sutram starts with the opening

> sentence thus:-

> " Om atha atah brahma jignasaa" -

> "Hereafter, Therefore, the desire to know Brahman".

>

> In this Sutra, we have

> FIRST, the Brahman whose knowledge is desired;

> SECONDLY, we have the desire to know (Jignasa).

> THIDLY, We have the desire to know Brahman as a 'sequence'

> (Atha) and as a consequence (Atah) of an antecedent occurrence.

>

> All the following quotes are from Sri R. Kesava Iyengar's foreword

> to "SathadooshaNi" by Sri Srivatsankachariar Swami.

>

> *This opening sentence, according to Sri Vedanta Desika is

> incompatible with the system of both Nirvisesha' and 'Advaita'-

> because the entity desiring to know is unreal and non-existent as per

> the Nirvisesha Advaitins*

>

> *There is nothing with reference to which there can be sense-

> signification for there is no sense to be signified at all*

>

> As Swami Desika puts it.

> *If the word signifies 'sense' 'Nirvisesha' is gone;

> If it does not, 'Brahman' is gone-like the birth of a grandchild to a

> barren woman*

>

> *First, a Nirvisesha Brahman is incapable of being an object of

> knowledge ... *

>

> *Secondly, there can be no 'desire to know'. Unless there is

> something in Brahman which it is desirable to know. There can be no

> desire to know a bare being Brahman in all its emptiness of husk and

> in all jejuneness of vacuity.

>

> *Unless there is something inherent in and characteristic of Brahman

> which can kindle desire in the knower, no desire to know Brahman can

> at all originate" ... When the knower is an illusion like a burnt

> cloth to use a metaphor of the Advaitins -'dagda paTa'*

>

> *There is no knower, and there can be no knowledge.

> Without a knower to know and an object to be known, all talk of

> knowledge leading to liberation can only be trick of duplicity and

> not a fact of experience*(Kesava Iyengar p.50 ibid)

>

> *It is not correct to say that Knowledge of oneness of 'ParamAtma

> and JeevAtma is mOksha ' and the knowledge of differentiation between

> them is "SamsAra*

>

> *The person who has no belief in the liberating knowledge provided by

> the Vedas, the knower, the one who bestows knowledge (i.e.) the

> Saastras that is the source of knowledge that dispels ignorance-

> *If all these are false, how can one talk about 'desire for

> knowledge' or the 'efficacy of instruction' (UpadEsa)? *

>

> *Verbal knowledge is per se unfruitful. It has to be experienced by

> the hearer. The verbal knowledge that mango is sweet, however valid

> and authentic, remains per se unfruitful to the hearer until he

> tastes it himself*

>

> "When a tiger cub, which lived with a flock of sheep was reminded

> that it was indeed a tiger cub and not sheep, by practically

> demonstrating its feeding on a bloody carcass.

>

> *To say that he 'knew' he was a tiger would be weak indeed. He now'

> was' a tiger"(Troy Wilson Organ, p.33)

>

> Prof. Narayanachariar adds:

> *" The 'atha' preceding the AadEsa (the instruction) and the 'atah'

> (therefore) further making the transmission of meaning continuous and

> smooth and not indicating a contrary message of contrast, in which

> case, the connectives would be "Thu" (but or on the contrary). The

> AadEsa follows as a 'Corollary' and not emerges

> as 'disrupting', 'devastating' conclusion to the contrary"*

> ====================================================

> SECTION 3 (H) JEEVAN MUKTI

> (LIBERATION WHILE LIVING IN THE PHYSICAL BODY)

> ===================================================

> The Advaitins hold that it is possible for the individual soul to

> attain liberation while still living in the phenomenal world with the

> gross body - if it realizes its unity with Brahman since realization

> (or knowledge) is enough to secure liberation. Several examples are

> cited to illustrate how the body continues even after one attains

> what they call ' Jeevan Mukti'

>

> (i) When once a wheel is turned around, even when we take off our

> hand, it continues to revolve due to the momentum gained while it was

> turned around.

>

> (ii) When a vehicle moves fast, even when the brake is applied, it

> screeches to a halt only after traversing at least a short distance

> from the point where the brake is applied.

>

> (iii) In Viveka ChooDAmaNi, Adhi Sankara compares the body of a

> Jeevan mukta to the dry leaves clinging to the branches of a tree

> during the fall season or a cucumber fruit that had over- ripened

> clinging to the branch of the tree before finally falling down.

>

> Advaitins call this 'Cucumber liberation'.

>

> COMMENT OF OTHER SCHOOLS:

> The other schools do not accept this 'Jeevan Mukti'.

> They hold that liberation can be attained only on the fall of the

> body. This is called ' Videha Mukti'- 'Out of body liberation'-which

> can arise only on death. This is because, as Visishtadvaita holds, on

> performance of Prapatti, all sins are extinguished except that

> portion of PrArabda karma which the ' Dripta' Prapanna has agreed to

> experience till the time comes for the fall of his body in the normal

> course.

>

> And, the very existence of the body is a result of such karma and is

> required for experiencing the results of such karma. Only at the time

> of death, there will be a nil balance of Karma thus entitling the

> Prapanna to MOksha.

>

> Here is an excerpt from Satapata Brahmana of Yajurveda

> As translated by Sir Monier Williams and quoted by Gerber (p.3) which

> would show that the 'Jeevan Mukti' concept is not valid and

> only 'Videha Mukti' is acknowledged in the Vedas. -

>

> " The Gods lived constantly in dread of death-

> The mighty Ender - So, with toilsome rites

> They worshipped and performed religious acts

> Till they became immortal;

> Then, the Ender said to the Gods-

> "As you have made yourselves

> Imperishable, so will men endeavor

> To free themselves from me;

> What portion then shall I possess in man?'

> The Gods replied-

> 'Henceforth no being shall become immortal

> In his own body; this his mortal frame

> Shall thou still seize?

> This shall remain thine own -

> He who through Knowledge or religious works

> Henceforth attains to immortality

> Shall first present his body, Death, to thee"'

>

> The Advaitins call this ' Krama Mukti' open to those souls that have

> not realized their identity with the ParamAtma.

> ====================================================

> GRD 7: SECTION 4: COMMON GROUNDS AS BETWEEN

> ADVAITA, DVAITA AND VISISHTADVAITA will follow

> ====================================================

>

>

>

>

>

> ______________________

> ______________________

>

> Message: 2

> Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:27:22 -0800 (PST)

> Narender Reddy <reddynp

> Re: A Humble Correction to Mr GK Ramakrishnan's mail ...

>

>

> --- Anand K Karalapakkam <kgk wrote:

> > SrI:

> > SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH

> >

> > namO nArAyaNa!

> >

> >I would like to remind you that this

> > list has the

> > basis of SrI VaishNava SampradAya. Kindly read the

> > following

> > The Sanskrit term "Vigraha" is very much used

> to

> > denote

> > archA-avatAram of PerumAL {Like "Vigraha

> > AarAdhanam" etc}.

> > "Idol" is its English equivalent. There is nothing

> > wrong

> > in that word as such to denote PerumAL.

>

> Is it not that the word "Idol" represents ideation?

> Perhaps, you should go to the Latin root for the word

> to extract the real meaning (jest like we go to the

> Sanskrit root for our words) then perhaps you will be

> able to conclude if we couyld use it to denote God (I

> accept only one God Lord Sriman Narayana). I feel that

> there is everything wrong in using the word "IDOL."

>

> Yes, in the age of Kali yuga, when a majority of the

> so called Sri Vaishnavas are clebrating the mid night

> of January first (Christian New Year) as their own New

> Year, and celebrating the Christian Millianeium as

> their own sending Christian Millianium greetings to

> one another (even on the internet), I guess God could

> be reduced to that of an "IDOL."

>

> Do you go to a respected Swami and call him "He Guy?"

> However, there are some of us either Sri Vaishnavas or

> not who might feel it insulting to refer God's Sri

> Vigraham as "Idol."

>

> > modern thinkers

> > started criticizing "Idol Worship" etc and the

> > name "Idol" got

> > involved in such issues while referring to PerumAL

> > => Usage

> > of this word became mis-leading. Thus, we may

> > resort to other terms.

>

> > There is a lot of difference between Lord's

> > picture and

> > His archA-avatAram like either Vigraha Or

> > SAlagrAma-MUrti.

> > The former is only a representation of Him with

> > His divine

> > form {the paper etc being prakruti only} and the

> > latter is

> > verily Himself with the suddha-sattva form {either

> > due

> > to consecration by Aagamas Or taken by Lord

> > Himself on His

> > own}.

>

> Are you saying that the Archa Murthy in my home is not

> God or does not have the same power. Isopanishad

> declares: "Purnam Ada Purnamidam..." The Archa Murthy

> has the same power as in the Nitya Vibhoothi. When he

> descends, he descds with all his power. How about a

> guy

> who does not have a moorthy in the house or he is

> travelling, and he has only a photo calender. Suppose,

> he does arch to that form. Do you think that God does

> not accept that archa?

>

> In the service of Lord Sri Venkateswara, I remain,

>

> Sincerely

> Narender Reddy

> reddynp

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Get email at your own domain with Mail.

> http://personal.mail./

>

>

>

> ______________________

> ______________________

>

> Message: 3

> Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:26:09 -0000

> sriharirag

> Re: http://www.radioramanuja.com/ - Prabhandam On-Line

>

> Dear Sir,

>

> Srimathe Narayanaye namah...

>

> I am a student here in USA and I had always felt a need for learning

> Divya Prabandham and this site has given me a way to do so.

> The recitation by Dr. MAV and others is very clear and it was like

> music to my ears hearing the Divya Prabandam.

> My humble namaskarams to the feet of all the people involved in this

> project.

>

> Adiyen

> Srihari Raghavan

>

> > --- Pattangi <danp@u...> wrote:

> > > SrimathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> > >

> > > Dear Devotees:

> > >

> > > With the divine blessings of Lord Sriman Narayana

> > > and our achAryAs, we

> > > have started work on radioramanuja.com

> > >

> > > This is an attempt to bring 4000 Divya Prabhandam &

> > > Vedas Chanting from

> > > authentic sources.

> > > In the near future we will also have Santhai format

> > > on-line for those who

> > > want to learn.

> > >

> > > We have most of Periyazhwar's pasurams on line. We

> > > are counting on your

> > > feedback as to the quality of

> > > audio & any improvements that could be done.

> > >

> > >

> > > http://www.radioramanuja.com/

> > >

> > > You will need realplayer installed in your machine

> > > to hear realaudio.

> > >

> > > We are trying to get approval from original sources

> > > in India, and once we

> > > have it as time permits,

> > > we will be putting up Chants in four major styles:

> > > Kancheepuram, Srirangam,

> > > Thirupathi, Thiruvalikkeni

> > >

> > > Shri. Venkat and others from Bahrain

> > > (rmvenkat) have done a

> > > wonderful job of putting

> > > the text and audio on-line:

> > > http://www.srivaishnava.20m.com/prabandham.htm

> > >

> > > With LORD SRIMAN NARAYANA's grace we could start

> > > this process,

> > > and with his blessings we look forward to making

> > > progress.

> > >

> > > AzhwAr EmberumAnAr Jeeyar ThiruvadigalE saranam

> > >

> > > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > > Mukundan Vankipuram Pattangi

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Srirangasri-

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Your use of is subject to

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > =====

> > eating beef and meat of pig is considered sin by Hindus. we treat

> cow as kamadhenu.Moreover science says eating these two meat has

> carbon contents. This is injurious to stomach and health.Avoid non

> vegetarian food at any cost.

> >

> >

> >

> > Get email at your own domain with Mail.

> > http://personal.mail./

>

>

>

>

> ______________________

> ______________________

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear SrI Narender,

 

> Is it not that the word "Idol" represents ideation?

> Perhaps, you should go to the Latin root for the word

> to extract the real meaning (jest like we go to the

> Sanskrit root for our words) then perhaps you will be

> able to conclude if we couyld use it to denote God (I

> accept only one God Lord Sriman Narayana). I feel that

> there is everything wrong in using the word "IDOL."

 

SrI Anbil has already provided the dictionary meanings.

There is nothing wrong to use that word as such by those

who communicate in English. But, as pointed out by

SrI RAma RAmAnujAchArya of Australia and SrI Jai-Simman,

there are many serious implications of using that term

for a larger audience.

 

> Yes, in the age of Kali yuga, when a majority of the

> so called Sri Vaishnavas are clebrating the mid night

> of January first (Christian New Year) as their own New

> Year, and celebrating the Christian Millianeium as

> their own sending Christian Millianium greetings to

> one another (even on the internet), I guess God could

> be reduced to that of an "IDOL."

 

I don't understand as to what this means. But be

straightforward and open of what you want to convey

Or accuse someone.You will then get the appropriate

reply from the concerned persons for sure.

 

> Do you go to a respected Swami and call him "He Guy?"

 

Your objection is not valid since Idol is a good

English equivalent only. The reason why we have to resort

to other terms like Icon is another issue. Your question

should rather be "Do you address a respected SwAmi as

Master" ?. Well, when the communication is in English,

there is no harm in it.

 

By the way, I prefer Sanskrit terms like archa-avatAram,

SwAmi, AchArya etc in my English articles/communication.

 

> Are you saying that the Archa Murthy in my home is not

> God or does not have the same power.

 

I understand that you are referring to a mUrthi which

has not undergone mantra-pratishTa. In that case, there

is no doubt that it is not an archA-avatAra mUrti.

 

>Isopanishad

> declares: "Purnam Ada Purnamidam..." The Archa Murthy

> has the same power as in the Nitya Vibhoothi.

 

Whatever you have quoted is only a ShAnti-PATam

recited before ISAvAsyOpanishad and not a mantra belonging

to it.

 

It deals with the DivyAtma-Swaroopam - the PoorNatvam

of PerumAL. Ofcourse when He descends as an avatAram, His

PoorNatvam etc does not change and He is non-different from

Para-VAsudEva.

 

>When he

> descends, he descds with all his power. How about a

> guy

> who does not have a moorthy in the house or he is

> travelling, and he has only a photo calender. Suppose,

> he does arch to that form. Do you think that God does

> not accept that archa?

 

BhagavAn accepts it ofcourse. But as SAstra's injunction and

even by Lord's own divine commands through PAn~carAtra

SAstra, Bhagavad-ArAdhana has to be done to either a SAlagrAma

Or a mUrti which has undergone Aagama based mantra-pratishTa

(ie.archA-avatAram). This is what BhagavAn expects out of

His devotee. To those who lovingly perform AarAdhana to

pictures/photos, mere metalic representation of Him etc, He

will certainly guide them to reach the standards as expected

by Him.

-----

 

By the way, I don't want to start a thread as to Whether

usage of the word "God" to address "SrIman NArAyaNa"

as done around five times by you in this posting is rather

insulting to BhagavAn since the Sanskrit word "BhagavAn" has

six salient features pertaining to SrIman NArAyaNa alone

and address Him directly, as said by Sage ParASara in

SrI VishNu PurANa.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear devotees,

 

The following information was provided by a fellow

bhAgavata and a very good friend of mine.

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

The following is Microsoft Encarta English dictionary's definition of

idol.

 

Entry found for "idol"

 

idol n

 

1. somebody or something greatly and often fanatically admired and

loved

(disapproving)

 

2. something such as a statue or carved image that is worshiped as a

god

 

3. in monotheistic religions, any object of worship other than the one

God

 

end of quote.

 

Every meaning is negative. Remember, this dictionary gives what is

currently understood. Even this term when used by the British was

intended

to be derogatory to Sriman Narayana. Contrast this with the

definition of

the term deity from the same dictionary given below.

 

Entry found for "deity"

--

 

deity n

 

1. a god, goddess, or other divine being

 

2. somebody or something that is treated like a god

 

3. the condition or status of a god or goddess

 

Deity n

 

God in monotheistic belief

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

 

Since the transformation has taken place by culture,usage

etc, it will be safer not to use the word "Idol" to denote

Lord's archA-avatAram. This was the point I was making

from the beginning. Since a major section of the English

speaking public started using this word in a negative sense,

we don't have other choice than to switch over to other

meaningful terms like Deity, Icon etc as suggested by others.

But, those who had been using the word "Idol" in a well

meant manner to a circuit of SrI-VaishNavas can't

be accused of insulting Lord Or has improper usage etc.

Still there are section of people for whom Idol is not

derogatory in sense. Hence, while there can be a better

usage, it can't be an improper usage alltogether.

 

This is my last note on this issue.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

[Guest guest]

--- Anand K Karalapakkam <kgk wrote:

> Still there are section of people for whom Idol is not

> derogatory in sense. Hence, while there can be a better

> usage, it can't be an improper usage alltogether.

>

> This is my last note on this issue.

>

> aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

> anantapadmanAbhan.

 

 

Dear friends,

 

The dust settles and finally there is light!

 

Reading all the interesting mails of all the learned members on this

subject all these weeks has indeed been fine education for me

personally. I had never realized that the word "idol" in the

religious lexicon was in fact one of those obnoxious "4-letter words"

everyone loves to hate.

 

I offer just a few personal thoughts to all learned members:

 

(2) I think it's 'idolatry' that one really hates not "idols". There

is nothing wrong or unsavoury with the word "idol" per se, except

that "idolatry" makes it so, isn't it? Tomorrow if "iconoclasm" were

to become a virulent religion amongst people then the word "icon" too

would fall from grace, right? ("Love" is not a bad word, but "making

love", in a context of carnality, does give off a rather malodorous

connotation, doesn't it?)

 

(2) If people were ready to kill one another for the sake of an

'idol' it would be "idolatry". What does it matter then what we call

it... "idol", "icon", "image", Deity, whatever?

 

(3) If an "idol" inspires or promotes love, humanism, pacifism and

brotherhood amongst people then would it be wrong to be intensely

"idolatrous" (or fanatical) about it? Conversely, if one is fanatical

about "non-idolatry" and would go to any extent... even large-scale

violence... for the sake of it, then what might be said of those

"idols"? The Buddha preached universal "ahimsa" and non-violence of

all forms. His famous "idols" in Afghanistan made out of natural rock

formations several centuries ago got demolished in minutes last week

on the purely religious conviction that "idols" are taboo. So which

side is wrong here? The "idol" or the "anti-idolatry"?

 

(4) Saint Thyagaraja of TiruvaiyAru had a personal idol of Sri.Rama

which he worshipped intensely, spoke to it, fed it lovingly, put it

to bed, sang immortal songs for it... The idol was not sanctified by

any "Agama"... But what does it matter to us if the idol of

TiruvaiyAru is called "idol", "icon" or "image" or "archA"...

Rama-bhaktA-s and Tyagabrahmam's bhaktA-s know in their hearts what

it truly was to the saint then and what it means today to them...

 

Regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

 

Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.

http://auctions./

[Guest guest]

Harihi Om

 

Happy New Year to you all. While browsing through the archives of , I

came across the following note from Sri AnandaKaralapakkam whom I used to know

personally when he was in the U.S. I believe he is back in India and I would

very

much like to stay in touch if he can kindly write to me.

 

Anand made a tremendous point in his posting which brings forth clearly the

distinctions among various practices of worshipping pictures, vigrahas etc.,

concecrated or not, prevalent especially, in the U.S. notwithstanding the

increase

in similar practices even in India in this day-and-age.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the discussion of Archavatara being a form

or

forms in which the Lord of the universe is descent on earth just to be

accessible

to human worship, can be found only in the Vishishtaadvaita philosophy. If that

is

not the case, can we find references where other forms of deities such as

Ganesha,

Shiva, Linga and so on having been justified or approved? Especially, the Linga

which is so similar to the Saligrama though the former is more often than

man-sculptured whereas the latter is to be found naturally.

 

Since references to Rudra, Indra and so on can be found in the Vedas

extensively,

many a time with the same ferver and emphasis as Narayana, it appears that the

Sanatana Dharma which all of the currently recognized sampradayas are rooted in,

the Dharma (philosophy) of the Vedas has never been monotheistic. It may be that

attempts were made subsequently through Vishnu Purana, Shivapurana and so on, to

render the Dharma monotheistic adopting the presiding deity to be either

Narayana

or Rudra depending on the viewpoints of the thinkers of that erstwhile era.

 

The differences in view points apparently have persisted for thousands of years

and since the different view points quote the same resources of Vedas and

Upanishads to justify them, they have clearly diminished the authenticity of the

sources themselves. I think these differences in philosophies have given rise to

polytheism leading to worshipping of multitude forms of deities and so on. I am

not trying to be skeptical of all forms of worship but I can see how deity

worship

has deteriorated to the point of being pointless and a mundane act. I am also

concerned that the practices of deity worship by Hindus is not only still viewed

as Pagan worship by the Western religions, but has disillusioned most members of

our younger generation about our religiosity. No wonder fascination for Buddhist

teachings, new age religions, etc., is increasing among our youth many of whom

are

also being driven towards total Atheism.

 

I don't know if any of you share the same views and if so, if there is anything

we

as a group can do to improve the situation in carrying the right message to our

youth. Our temples in the U.S. have fallen into the same trap of being ritual

ridden if not for anything else but to raise funds to survive financially. I

have

also heard people say that the teaching starts at home but I am yet to come

across

even devout practising Srivaishnavas having successfully averted the danger of

their children entertaining ideas totally different from theirs or participated

in

an effort of spiritual development compatible to the household they are growing

in.

 

Adiyen Srihari Dasan

 

Keshava Prasad.

 

 

 

Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

 

> SrI:

> SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH

>

> namO nArAyaNa!

>

> Dear SrI Jai Simman and other devotees,

>

> > I merely presented what my spiritual master Srila Prabhupada has explained

> > in his books

> > with regard to the Archa Murti.

>

> I know that you are a follower of SrI BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi

> and you sincerly try to reflect his views in your writings.

> While I am not against you following the views of that

> SampradAya, I would like to remind you that this list has the

> basis of SrI VaishNava SampradAya. Kindly read the following

> on what SrI-VaishNavas has to say on the philosophical

> issues which you had written.

>

> The Sanskrit term "Vigraha" is very much used to denote

> archA-avatAram of PerumAL {Like "Vigraha AarAdhanam" etc}.

> "Idol" is its English equivalent. There is nothing wrong

> in that word as such to denote PerumAL. But some modern thinkers

> started criticizing "Idol Worship" etc and the name "Idol" got

> involved in such issues while referring to PerumAL => Usage

> of this word became mis-leading. Thus, we may resort to other

> terms.

>

> >It is verily the Lord Himself since in the ultimate issue there is

> > no difference between the Lord and His form, wherever It may be manifested

> > in as much as the Lord is present wherever Harinama is chanted because there

> > is no difference between Him and His Name.

>

> Earlier, you wrote on these lines in another SrI VaishNava list

> also. I had written few mails explaining from Brahma-SUtras

> (+SrI-BhAshya) and other pramANas that Lord is different

> from His divine body which is another tattva{reality} called

> Suddha-Sattva. While you made a blanket statement that these

> things are "mAyAvAda" etc, I had explained as to how

> Bhagavad RAmAnuja follows Sage VyAsa and Upanishads

> correctly regarding this issue. I also enlisted some

> books for your reference.

>

> Still, you have written the very same thing probably

> thinking that your understanding is same as that

> of SrI-VaishNava sampradAya {and probably forgot everything

> of what I wrote earlier}.

>

> There is a lot of difference between Lord's picture and

> His archA-avatAram like either Vigraha Or SAlagrAma-MUrti.

> The former is only a representation of Him with His divine

> form {the paper etc being prakruti only} and the latter is

> verily Himself with the suddha-sattva form {either due

> to consecration by Aagamas Or taken by Lord Himself on His

> own}. Lord eternally has divine form at SrI-VaikuNTham. The

> archa-avatAram is the descent of that Para-VAsudEva {avatAram =

> descent) in making the materialistic forms made of Gold

> etc as Suddha-Sattva because of the procedures of the Aagama

> SAstras lovingly followed by His devotee and assumes that

> form out of abundant mercy for all the devotees to worship,

> serve and benifit.

>

> SwAmi dESikan quotes from AgamAs and says that, the excessive

> amount of milk when mixed with water, still remains as milk

> ( eg: 10 litres of milk + 1 litre of water gives 11

> litres of milk ie. the milk and water are so well

> mixed that the difference between milk and water

> can't be found). Similarly, the thirumEni of PerumAL

> in arcAvatAram has excessive suddha sattvam mixed with

> matter(prakruti) such as gold , and we shouldn't

> distinguish between suddha sattvam and the gold present.

> Thus, arcAvatAra thirumEni is suddha sattavm only (

> similar to how 11 litres of milk is referred to as

> milk, though technically 1 litre of water is present).

>

> Actually, its a very great sin to view the archa-thirumEni

> as something made up of some materialistic substance.

>

> One important siddhAnta is that even during the advanced stages

> of bhakti-yoga like Para-bhakti, the yOgi has only the

> darSana-samAna sAkshAtkAram ie. not actual sAkshAtkAram

> but mental image of Lord acquired by his yoga attains a very

> good stage, which is similar to the actual suddha-satva thirumEni

> viSishTa SrIman nArAyaNa, but not the same.

>

> I am not interested in any further discussion etc due to

> my time constraints and other important commitments. You can

> refer the books for your further doubts. If you are interested,

> I can send you an article of mine that was written on this

> issue.

>

> I would like to conclude reminding the 17th verse {ViSvAtiSAyi..}

> of VaradarAja Pan~chAsat by SrI VEdAnta DESika, which beautifully

> states {in a characteristic style of SwAmi DESikan} that (even)

> Bhakti-Yogins meditating upon Lord gets the doubt/confusion

> as to whether the divine form is Either You Or Yours, as

> both are declared in VEdas to be of the same nature as that

> of jn~AnAnanda-maya.

>

> While the two are actually different in tattva, Lord VaradarAja's

> divine body's mAhAtmyam {greatness} is also something unimaginable

> --conveys SwAmi DESikan. Thank God that unparalleled PUrvAchAryas

> of our sampradAyam like BhagavAn RAmAnuja and BhagavAn VEdAnta

> DESika have very well explained the intricacies of SAstras

> and I am no more in such a confusion as even other great yogins

> might have :-) {On a lighter note ...But the hidden message

> about our PUrvAchAryas is true}.

>

> SwAmi DESikan thiruvaDigaLE SaraNam

>

> aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

> anantapadmanAbhan.

>

>

> Srirangasri-

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

SrI:

NamO Narayana:

 

Dear Sri Keshava Prasad:

 

AdiyEn shall try to address with adiyEn's few

Cents worth perspective.

 

The Vedas, as explained by our Azhwars and

Poorvachariyars, is very clear on who the

Paramathma is. It is clearly established that

Paramathma is Sriya:Pathi Sriman Narayana and

all "others" are Jivas.

 

On Archa Vigraham:

 

Our Poorvachariyars have also established that

Sriya:Pathi Sriman Narayana takes cares of us

And HE shows himself in 5 forms:

 

Para form at Sri Vaikuntam

Vyuha form at Sheerabdhi

Vibhava form the various Avatars he takes to protect us

Antharyami form being inside "everyone" &

Archa form again to help us worship him in various forms.

 

It is quiet possible only Visistadvaitha philosophy could

have explained the Kalyana Gunas of Paramatma and his 5 forms.

 

The other "deities" as you mentioned can have only one

Relevance that Sriya:Pathi Sriman Narayana is Antharyami

in such deities and that’s it.

 

As various interpretations emerged on the Vedas, "sanctity"

for "other deities" came into practice and has also gained

acceptance. At the same, it is also sad, that even worship

today has majorly become materialistic and hence we encounter

some kind of ridicule from people of other faiths.

 

The knowledgeable members of our group will be of help

in establishing how Advaita was an important cause in

the interpretation of Vedas, in such a way, that "other

Deities"; practices have become part of "worship".

 

However, You can be rest assured that our Azhwars, Bashyakaarar,

Swami Desikan and other Poorvachariyars have taken tremendous

pains to explain the Vedas clearly and help poor Jivas like us

to understand and follow the Sri Sampradayam. It is Sriya:Pathi

Sriman Narayana who is the Ultimate - the Paramatma and all others

are Jivas and our only aim should be to reach Paramapadam and

perform Thiruvadi Kaimkaryam.

 

dAsan

Anand Sampathkumar

1st January 2002

 

Srimad Azhagia Singar Thiruvadigale Saranam

Shrimate Shri Seetha Ramachandra Parabrahmane Nama: