Guest guest Posted March 10, 2001 Report Share Posted March 10, 2001 Dear Bhagavatas: In message # 107 dated 27th February 2001, I had announced that I would be away for about a fortnight at Indianapolis, where I did not have Internet facility, that I would not be able to post anything till 9th March 2001 and that regular postings would resume only from 10th March 2001. Some of the correspondents seem to have overlooked this message. I had also made it clear that while I might be able to peruse mails, I could reply only after getting back to Atlanta. However, with a moment of brief help of someone's laptop computer, I managed to post the concluding portions of "Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam" which had already appeared in other internet sites. In the meanwhile, our site has been flooded with messages on the subject of the appropriateness of the term "Idol" to describe the "ArchA Vigraha" of the Lord. Having allowed the first few postings, I would have been accused of being discriminatory, if I had disallowed the rest, though some of them were off the mark and tangential. Reluctantly, I had to approve them. I wish to remind that the objective of the group has been set forth clearly in the Preamble: "This is a group for studying the Visishtadvaita philosophy and practices as laid down by AzhwArs and AchAryas. Articles and discussions are welcome subject to the general norms of tolerance and mutual respect within and without the realms of the above philosophy and practices". One of the reasons for requesting feedback to be addressed to "Sri_ranga_Sri" and not to the " address" is to avoid tangential postings and give some leeway for the Editor to censor such materials. This is because "Sri Ranga Sri" is mainly a Journal and NOT a general discussion group as rightly pointed out by Sri Malolan Cadambi, Sri Anand Karalapakkam and Sri M.K.Sudarshan. My heartfelt thanks to these Bhagavatas for clarifying the focus of "Sri Ranga Sri" I may add that "Sri Ranga Sri" is meant primarily for educating our Srivaishnavas who may have lost their moorings from our Sampradayam due to extraneous circumstances by living for long, and far away from the mainstream as also the 2nd and subsequent generations who have had no opportunity to be initiated into our Satsampradayam. Others interested in learning are also welcome provided they approach in the spirit of honest yearning as conveyed in the Gita SlOkam "Tad viddhi prathipAdEna pariprasnEna sEvayA", not in an attempt to nit- pick, based on the idiosyncrasies of traditions outside (VedabAhyas) the pale of our ParamaVaideeka matham of SrivaishNavam Each language has peculiar idioms. Translation into another language can never bring out the exact import of the original. The noblest translation as someone said can only be "from gold to lead", "from the sublime to the ridiculous" or "from Idiomatic to idiotic" The best way to arrive at meanings is to refer to some standard dictionaries. There is nothing derogatory about the word "idol" as seen from the meaning for the word "Vigraha" given in different standard dictionaries like - Roget's Thesaurus, Monier William's dictionaries (both Sanskrit to English and English to Sanskrit), The dictionary published by the Sanskrit Education Society, Madras, The Great Lifco Dictionary (both English to Tamil and Tamil to English). Also, the word "Idol" has been adopted by great Scholars proficient in both Sanskrit and English (e.g.) Sri C.R. SrinivAsa Iyengar Swami who has translated Srimad VAlmiki RAmAyaNam in English and Tamil, Prof. A. SrinivAsarAghavan Swami who has translated almost all works of Swami Desika, Sri M.R. RAjagOpAla Iyengar Swami who has translated faithfully Srimad Rahasya Traya Saram in English and many more. We need not be carried away by what some Westerners or their scriptures say or dictate what we should think or say. We are not interested in proselytization or conversion to our faith. If "Idol" is wrong, so is "Icon" because we come across "iconoclast". Buddha who started as an "Iconoclast" ended up as being an "Icon" himself and as we see his icons (idols?) being destroyed by Taliban fanatics. If one needs to know how "Islam" views those whom they call "Infidels" (including us), you will be startled by the revelations in the site- http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/ We need not bend ourselves backwards to oblige their views. We need not chip off our head to suit the cap while it should really be the other way about. This is like the fad with some of our NRIs mutilating their beautiful given names to suit the disability of the aliens in pronouncing them! When they can pronounce such long winding names as "Stephanapoulus" etc, what difficulty can they have in pronouncing our names and why should we oblige them by mutilating our beautiful and meaningful names? The learned Professor has pointed out our adopting the Western Calander, observing Christmas or cutting cakes on our birtdays etc. I would like to point out that there are two different and mutually exclusive concerns in society viz., "Social" and "Religious". These are at best merely Social events. But, when we do our sankalpam in our religious obligations, we do it citing Thithi, vAra, nakshatra, yoga and karaNa etc. of our PanchAngam and not some western almanac. I still feel that the word "Idol" is not taboo, so far as we Srivaishnavas are concerned. Those who are comfortable with "Icon" may use the term and those who feel comfortable with "Idol" may continue with the same. Anyway, I would request that the discussion on this subject may be terminated and let us move on to study our glorious Satsampradayam as indicated in the "Statement of objective of Sri Ranga Sri" mentioned in the preamble. Dasoham Anbil Ramaswamy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2001 Report Share Posted March 11, 2001 Well said, Swamin. I & I am pretty sure a lot more will second your suggestion(s). I can't imagine why a lot of our folks give 'undue' importance to how the rest of the world looks at our ideologies and beliefs. I think you've given a well articulated 'punch' to the discussion group via this e-mail. Dasoham, Vijayaraghavan. - <Ramanbil <> Saturday, March 10, 2001 6:40 PM Idol and Icon > Dear Bhagavatas: > In message # 107 dated 27th February 2001, I had announced that I > would be away for about a fortnight at Indianapolis, where I did not > have Internet facility, that I would not be able to post anything > till 9th March 2001 and that regular postings would resume only from > 10th March 2001. Some of the correspondents seem to have overlooked > this message. > > I had also made it clear that while I might be able to peruse mails, > I could reply only after getting back to Atlanta. However, with a > moment of brief help of someone's laptop computer, I managed to post > the concluding portions of "Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam" > which had already appeared in other internet sites. > > In the meanwhile, our site has been flooded with messages on the > subject of the appropriateness of the term "Idol" to describe > the "ArchA Vigraha" of the Lord. Having allowed the first few > postings, I would have been accused of being discriminatory, if I had > disallowed the rest, though some of them were off the mark and > tangential. Reluctantly, I had to approve them. > > I wish to remind that the objective of the group has been set forth > clearly in the Preamble: > "This is a group for studying the Visishtadvaita philosophy and > practices as laid down by AzhwArs and AchAryas. Articles and > discussions are welcome subject to the general norms of tolerance and > mutual respect within and without the realms of the above philosophy > and practices". > > One of the reasons for requesting feedback to be addressed > to "Sri_ranga_Sri" and not to the " address" is > to avoid tangential postings and give some leeway for the Editor to > censor such materials. > > This is because "Sri Ranga Sri" is mainly a Journal and NOT a general > discussion group as rightly pointed out by Sri Malolan Cadambi, Sri > Anand Karalapakkam and Sri M.K.Sudarshan. My heartfelt thanks to > these Bhagavatas for clarifying the focus of "Sri Ranga Sri" > > I may add that "Sri Ranga Sri" is meant primarily for educating our > Srivaishnavas who may have lost their moorings from our Sampradayam > due to extraneous circumstances by living for long, and far away from > the mainstream as also the 2nd and subsequent generations who have > had no opportunity to be initiated into our Satsampradayam. > > Others interested in learning are also welcome provided they approach > in the spirit of honest yearning as conveyed in the Gita SlOkam "Tad > viddhi prathipAdEna pariprasnEna sEvayA", not in an attempt to nit- > pick, based on the idiosyncrasies of traditions outside (VedabAhyas) > the pale of our ParamaVaideeka matham of SrivaishNavam > > Each language has peculiar idioms. Translation into another language > can never bring out the exact import of the original. The noblest > translation as someone said can only be "from gold to lead", "from > the sublime to the ridiculous" or "from Idiomatic to idiotic" > > The best way to arrive at meanings is to refer to some standard > dictionaries. There is nothing derogatory about the word "idol" as > seen from the meaning for the word "Vigraha" given in different > standard dictionaries like - Roget's Thesaurus, Monier William's > dictionaries (both Sanskrit to English and English to Sanskrit), The > dictionary published by the Sanskrit Education Society, Madras, The > Great Lifco Dictionary (both English to Tamil and Tamil to English). > > Also, the word "Idol" has been adopted by great Scholars proficient > in both Sanskrit and English (e.g.) Sri C.R. SrinivAsa Iyengar Swami > who has translated Srimad VAlmiki RAmAyaNam in English and Tamil, > Prof. A. SrinivAsarAghavan Swami who has translated almost all works > of Swami Desika, Sri M.R. RAjagOpAla Iyengar Swami who has > translated faithfully Srimad Rahasya Traya Saram in English and many > more. > > We need not be carried away by what some Westerners or their > scriptures say or dictate what we should think or say. We are not > interested in proselytization or conversion to our faith. If "Idol" > is wrong, so is "Icon" because we come across "iconoclast". Buddha > who started as an "Iconoclast" ended up as being an "Icon" himself > and as we see his icons (idols?) being destroyed by Taliban fanatics. > > If one needs to know how "Islam" views those whom they > call "Infidels" (including us), you will be startled by the > revelations in the site- http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/ > > We need not bend ourselves backwards to oblige their views. We need > not chip off our head to suit the cap while it should really be the > other way about. This is like the fad with some of our NRIs > mutilating their beautiful given names to suit the disability of the > aliens in pronouncing them! When they can pronounce such long winding > names as "Stephanapoulus" etc, what difficulty can they have in > pronouncing our names and why should we oblige them by mutilating our > beautiful and meaningful names? > > The learned Professor has pointed out our adopting the Western > Calander, observing Christmas or cutting cakes on our birtdays etc. > I would like to point out that there are two different and mutually > exclusive concerns in society viz., "Social" and "Religious". > These are at best merely Social events. > > But, when we do our sankalpam in our religious obligations, we do it > citing Thithi, vAra, nakshatra, yoga and karaNa etc. of our > PanchAngam and not some western almanac. > > I still feel that the word "Idol" is not taboo, so far as we > Srivaishnavas are concerned. Those who are comfortable with "Icon" > may use the term and those who feel comfortable with "Idol" may > continue with the same. > > Anyway, I would request that the discussion on this subject may be > terminated and let us move on to study our glorious Satsampradayam as > indicated in the "Statement of objective of Sri Ranga Sri" mentioned > in the preamble. > Dasoham > Anbil Ramaswamy > > > Srirangasri- > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.