Regarding my mails ...

[Guest guest]

Dear Anand Prabhu,

 

Hare Krishna.

Please accept my humble obeisances.

 

Thank you for your mail. We shall go on disagreeing with each other.

There would be no end to it. You will not agree with me and I will not

agree with you. That has already happened once and now we see it happen once

more.

 

With all due courtesy, I must say very frankly that I am not in the least

claiming that I am

representing Sri Vaishnavism necessarily. This is a list for Sri

Vaishnavism. I am aware of this.

But are we to come here as mindless zombies just to facilitate this

designation of the list ?

We are individuals and we have imbibed certain ideals and conclusions in our

course of life.

When we come here, we come to understand Sri Vaishnavism in the light of

what we have known

and learnt. As such, I have merely indicated what I understand. I have never

claimed any officialdom

to my words.

 

Furthermore, differences of opinion are sometimes over-emphasised and

sometimes under-emphasised

depending on the views of the writer. Not all Sri Vaishnavas have protested

to my writings. In fact, many have acclaimed it

as well. Therefore, this is something that you have to settle with the other

Sri Vaishnavas. Just as in the Gaudiya Sampradaya, in the Sri Vaishnava line

also, there are disagreements even amongst scholars over certain issues.

Therefore please do not be so sure that all that you say is in itself an

official and full representation of Sri Vaishnavism as accepted by all of

its followers.

I have never claimed that I am representing Sripad Ramanujacharya. A Gaudiya

Vaishnava has due respect for all Vaishnava Acharyas although in terms of

siddhanta, he knows their positions and how they all fit in within the

system of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.You may of course argue otherwise and put

forth your arguments. I may then counter and this can go on with no end in

sight. Controversies are there everywhere, including the Gaudiya, Sri and

Madhva lines.

 

But I have merely presented what I have understood. I have not in the least

even mentioned that this is Gaudiya Vaishnavism and that is Sri, etc. I have

presented as I understand. I am an individual and I carry with me my own

convictions when I approach the topics at hand here. That is all. The

central point of all Vaishnava Sampradayas, no matter what they are, is the

transcendental personal feature of the Lord. That is not denied. As such, I

am finding commonality here. You may wish to highlight technical

differences, etc. But that is your choice and this is mine. You may with to

show that I am wrong as much I can also prove otherwise. It is not difficult

to engage in vithandaavaadham. But I am the least interested in this just as

you have indicated your lack of time for this purpose. Therefore I shall

continue with my postings and if you feel you have something to contribute

then you please make that. I have no qualms. But I would beg you not to

attempt to monopolise and stifle the intellectual development of this list

by claiming Sri Vaishnava siddhantic monopoly for yourself. I have merely

indicated my understanding on this matter. Therefore, kindly refrain from

strawman arguments thrusting me with the guilt of misrepresenting your

sampradaya when I never even claimed as such. If indeed this list is only

for SVs, then keep it as a closed forum, not an open one. If it is open,

many of us will carry with our sampradayic affiliations to the understanding

of SVm and you have to digest this fact.

 

You have pointed out that there is a difference between a picture of the

Lord and a deity of the Lord that has undergone prathishta. But pray tell

me, will a pure devotee make a difference between one manner in which the

Lord is manifest and another ? It is certainly true that the recommendation

is for us to worship the Lord in the properly consecrated forms and that

these require higher standards than the pictures. But I am here talking

about the perfectional stage. In that state which is the final ideal, a pure

devotee will see the Lord wherever He is manifest and will not relegate that

consideration to that of external ritual alone. I think that would suffice

for now. If you wish to argue along technical terms, then you are most

welcome but it will not achieve anything fruitful because each of our

sampradaayic understanding of each and every technical term may have

differences because there are differences in the epistemologies of Sri

Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism, albeit to a slight extent. Of course,

even in this, you may differ, feeling that there are very significant

differences. To this, my answer would be simple - difference and similarity

are two views of a bottle. You may see the bottle as half empty but I may

see it as half full.

 

 

Hare Krishna !

 

 

Your servant,

R. Jai Simman

Singapore

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear SrI Jai-Simman,

 

I would like to write few words for clarifying the

mis-understandings you must have had. I appreciate and

respect you as a VaishNava, and I am not pointing

any mistakes etc of yours. Its for the clarification

purpose only.

 

 

You wrote:

>But I would beg you not to

>attempt to monopolise and stifle the intellectual development of

>this list by claiming Sri Vaishnava siddhantic monopoly for

>yourself. I have merely indicated my understanding on this matter.

>Therefore, kindly refrain from strawman arguments thrusting me with

>the guilt of misrepresenting your sampradaya when I never even

>claimed as such.

 

I would like to present here the very words of yours

(change to capitals by me for underlining the important

phrase), for which I replied as presented below it.

 

> 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.

 

You had written that this view of Yours is the conclusion of

VaishNavas. Since this is an e-group having SrI-VaishNavism as

the basis, I wrote the following :

-------

<< Start Quote >> :

 

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.

 

[...]

 

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}.

 

<< End Quote >>

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

 

Already in another list, I had presented numerous pramANas

from the works of SrI VaishNava AchAryas esp. Bhagavad

RAmAnuja's SrI-BhAshyam regarding this issue. Here again,

I presented other pramANas from SrI-VaishNava AchAryas.

 

If you had written again that the conclusion of VaishNavas

is as per your views, there are only the following

possiblities :

 

a. You know of source-texts of SrI-VaishNava AchAryas

which contradict what I say ie.as present in SrI-BhAshyam

and works of SrI VEdAnta DESika.

 

b. You know that whatever I had written is not the correct

translation /interpretation of SrI-VaishNava works, and

you have learnt from SrI-VaishNava AchAryas through

kAlakshEpam regarding the correct understanding of

SrI-BhAshyam etc works.

 

c. You read all the books I had enlisted earlier

in another list for your further study regarding this

issue and some scholars contradicted what I say.

 

Well, when all the above are not true, you wrote :

 

>Therefore, this is something that you have to settle with the other

>Sri Vaishnavas. Just as in the Gaudiya Sampradaya, in the Sri

>Vaishnava line also, there are disagreements even amongst scholars

>over certain issues. Therefore please do not be so sure that all

>that you say is in itself an official and full representation of

>Sri Vaishnavism as accepted by all of its followers.

 

You also claimed as below :

 

>Not all Sri Vaishnavas have protested

>to my writings. In fact, many have acclaimed it

>as well.

 

Regarding the usage of the word "Idol", some reported

their agreement with your views. I also agreed with it

as you can see my earlier postings. But, the point made

by me might be slightly different. This topic has no

relevance to the philosophical issue in hand regarding

the difference between Lord and His Form.

 

Taking your statement as the truth that "many" SrI-VaishNavas

accepted your views on this issue, I rather invite you to

quote as to who all agreed with you. Even taking for granted

that many had agreed with you, did any of them quote

pramANas from SrI-VaishNava AchAryas ? Well, individual

opinions do not matter obviously. When one is sure that the

conclusion of VaishNavas is something, it implies that he/she is

sure of the tenet as propounded by AchAryas of all the different

schools of VaishNavas.

 

Even otherwise, since you feel that some difference of opinion

might be there within SrI-VaishNavas, you might have written

"Conclusion of the Majority of the VaishNavas ..." or something

of that sort.

 

Infact, my posting had no objections since it is in complete

agreement with what the SrI-VaishNava-AchAryas say on this issue.

If at all some objection had been there and that too with

authoritative explanations from SrI-VaishNava-AchAryas, you

could have advised and sermoned me about my understanding

of SrI-VaishNavism as you have done now !

 

>If indeed this list is only

>for SVs, then keep it as a closed forum, not an open one. If it is

>open, many of us will carry with our sampradayic affiliations to

>the understanding of SVm and you have to digest this fact.

 

Hope that SrI Anbil makes note of this point. As I wrote

earlier, I am not against you writing the tenets of GVsm

in this e-group and I am not the policy maker for this

e-group : You have to settle that with SrI Anbil.

But, I only wrote back as to what SrI VaishNava AchAryas

say reg this issue. Since this e-group has SrI Vaishnavism as

the basis, I request you to kindly digest of what SrI VaishNava

AchAryas say on this issue.

-----------

 

The postings of yours and that of mine, also that

of SrI Narendar and SrI Malolan didn't appear for

few days, though we posted it long back. It is pretty

clear that some Administrative technical problem might

be the reason. It would have been wise to consult SrI Anbil

at first. Instead you wrote :

 

> Obviously there is some uncalled-for censorship to stifle what

> SOMEONE SEES AS EXTERNAL INTERVENTION INTO SELF-INTERPRETED

> SECTARIAN ATTITUDES GOING ON HERE.

 

<< Changed into Capitals by Me >>

 

Reg your allegation on "uncalled-for censorship", its

for SrI Anbil to answer it. But I can say from my side

that SrI Anbil is the most elderly good SrI VaishNava

here and his multitude good credentials are already well known

to the members. I would have liked more respectful words from

your pen for this distinguished BhAgavata who has been

tirelessly serving the SrI-VaishNava community esp through the

e-mail/Internet media.

 

Regarding the rest of your words, I would like to

give some clarifications. If you felt by your imagination that

I had some bad intentions whatsoever to prevent your posting

from appearing, you could have directly wrote to me

about it to resolve the issue. While I promise on

Lord that I am not at all involved in the non-appearence

of your postings, it also makes me feel sorry if you

had viewed me as your enemy or something of that sort.

 

Even otherwise, I am not going to gain anything in

censoring your posting. I can always write a clarification

like this for your information.

 

Three of my postings didn't get through and I was sure that

SrI Anbil had some technical problems Or some genuine

reason behind it. Even above all this, he is the list

owner and he has every right to retain certain postings

and hence I waited for his message if any. Its the duty of

the members to obey the principles laid down by the

e-group owner.

 

Your crowning piece to the list of accusations is the

awardance of the title "Self-Interpreted Sectarian Attitudes"

to my writings. Please re-visit the above paragraphs for

more clarifications.

 

>what can be done ?

>

>those who encourage discussion are also the culprits in curtailing

> the discussion when they perceive an expansion beyond the self

> imposed boundaries they have set for these.

 

Its for SrI Anbil to answer this.

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

 

Again, I re-iterate that I am not pin-pointing any mistakes

of yours etc. Its mainly to clarify as to what has happened.

Kindly read in a calm frame of mind as to what you wrote and

upon what premises you formed your opinions etc. If you got

offended by any statement, you can write directly to me

upon what you feel and I apologize in advance for the same.

 

Lets be good friends as fellow devotees of the Supreme Lord

and feel free to write privately to me anytime, if you have

objections Or reservations etc.Thanks.

 

I leave the rest for the comments by the SrI-VaishNavas of this

distinguished e-group.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan alias Anand.

KrushNArpaNam.