Few Questions

July 24, 2003

Dear Shri Devotees,

I have a few questions and please forgive me if they are offensive

in anyway. I haven't been active in the forum for past few months due

to personal reasons. I put forth my stance immediately before I pose

my questions. Though I am from an orthodox Vaishnava family, I do not

to most of the beliefs of our tradition. I was a moorkha

once ( Only my Lord is THE Lord, na devo narayaNaat para: ), proud

of my tradition, doing sandhyavandanam and samidhadaanam regularly. I

can't recall what exactly cause my faith to slip away. Probably, I

was digging deeper into the contents of Veda samhitas and embarrassed

to find few things... So, here are the questions.

1. Vishnu appears to be a minor deity in Rk Vedas. (Totally 6 suktams

I presume) In fact he is none other than Sun. No description of him

as (Shanka-chakra-gadaa-paNi) etc. On the other hand Indra appears a

thousand times with other deities like Agni, Pushan, Ashvins, Dyaava-

Prithvi, Rbhus, Varuna: etc. So on what basis we claim Vedas as our

authorities and Shriman Narayana is mentioned as the supreme in the

Vedas? (Of course, I am aware of NarayaNa-Valli in Taittriya

Aranyakam)

2. What about the 108 odd upanishads? There are varying number of

Upanishads that are considered authoritative. But while reading the

commentaries, I've seen "sectarian" upanishads quoted. This brings to

an interesting question. There is a Shaiva upanishad called

Sharabhopanishad, in which Shiva taking a form of Sharabha kills Lord

Nrusimha!!!!!! I find this extremely offensive. Now, if Upanishads

are part of Shruthi, and Shruthi is infallible, what about this

Upanishad? If we ignore this as fake but take "Nrusimha-

tapni", "gopala-tapini" upanishads as authoritative aren't we being

hypocritical? (There aren't major upanishads either).

3. Why aren't shudras allowed to read vedas? How about women? Even if

one is pure by heart and deeds?

4. Is God one? Then why is he taking different forms in different

places of earth? God according to Semitic religion is totally

different from our construction. So are they deluded? What objective

criterion would we use to see who is correct and who is not?

5. Why should the vedas be in Sanskrit? Why not in Tamil or any other

vernacular language?

6. Can a Shudra ever aspire to become a religious figure in our

tradition?

7. In Gita-Bhashyam, Shri Ramanuja casually mentions that sacrificing

animals during agnishToma is not ahimsa. How so?

8. Queer practices in Ashwamedha yagnya? (I am not going to give

details!). Human sacrifice in Purushamedha yagnya? (mentioned in

Shathapatha brahmana)?

More later.

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan.

July 28, 2003

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear Sriman Kasturi Rangan,

Good to see your post after a(yuga) long time:-) You have

lot of questions in your mind and I'm sure there are guys in this

forum who would answer your questions on vedas! I'll try to fill the

gap in places where others may or may not touch. So,please forgive me

if the wordings conveyed different and we can clarify later. I guess

you're a cool dude and your posts are always thought provoking. So

post your questions daringly. Without questioning knowledge can not

expand. Learning is a "continuous and not discrete" process.

What caused your faith to decline??? Have you heard of or

come across any Chain stores like Wal-Mart selling weed seeds for you

to plant weeds? Weeds grow by themselves. Negative thoughts are like

weeds. It does not require "any effort" on our part to grow/nourish

them. On the other hand,positive thoughts require effort. For the

moment let us keep aside "nirhEtuka krpa" and "sahEtuka krpa". We had

series of posts on this topic with lot of mis communication among the

bhAgavathAs!

Do you think of yourself as mUrkha for your thought "na

devo narayaNaat para:" or something else? We can not have emotions

without first having thoughts. There is "conscious" and "sub-

conscious" mind. What happens when we are wide awake and when we are

in deep sleep or a dreamy state? You just think over it and you

yourself will realize certain things. Subconscious mind accepts

everything the conscious mind is thinking good or bad. In 24 hours

time,we spend most of our time "talking" to our-selves. All other

interactions like talking to a friend or parents or boss or husband

or wife and so on would occupy less time. Sub conscious mind will use

all its available resources to actualize what it believes. Mind can't

think two thoughts at once.

I personally do not buy Sigmund Freud's views but I go for

Carl Jung's analytical psychology. I would say that Freud was

pessimistic while Jung was highly optimistic. There is a link between

subconscious and conscious mind. Whatever the conscious mind thinks

has an effect on the subconscious mind and keeps reverting back and

forth. Have you come across some depressed people who are sane

academically? I have and I tell them straight on their face that if

they are going to be like this(saying all negative things)I'mnot

going to be in their viscinity. There is something

called "association". We need/ought to associatie with people who

think positively. Then the thoughts get registered in the

subconsicuos mind and keeps reflecting and the conscious mind think

positively all the time. Otherwise there will be ocntradictions

between the subconscious and the conscious mind and that's where the

person becomes confused and slowly it leads to all kinds of

complications.

How do you think guys get into smoking or durgs etc? It's

all mainly because of association. If you're in the wrong

company,your life takes a detour and don't even know where you're

heading towards(what goal in life). Do we really need to make

an "effort" to develop good thinkings/character? I will disprove it

straight based on my personal experience. People's experiences could

be different and hence I can not convince people about "nirhEtuka

krpa". If they want to believe in it,well and good. If not that's

equally good too! Like you,I come from a staunch TK family. I was(am

and will)a steady and staunch believer in Sriman Narayana only.

Although my first Lord is Ramanauja,and having been isolated from a

divya desam like Tiru allikkENi,I was deprived of bhagavad viShyam.

My father being a true believer in "nirhEtuka krpa" never forced any

of us to learn "mandatorily" the rahasyams or any other TK

sampradayam works. I started learning all these since last year.

Initially when I started reading SVB,I was thinking why the Lord has

to shower His grace on me so late to learn all these things. Why

couldn't He have given me this knowledge say a decade ago(there was

no dearth for my unwavering faith in Ramanuja). This is where the

younger brother Sri azhagiya maNavALa perumAL NAyanAr's AcArya

Hrdhayam comes to the rescue of Sri Vacana BhuShaNam of Sri PiLLai

lOkAcArya. I should not say but the reading of these two works give

me immense pleasure! "Time(sudarshana chakra handled by the Lord and

He knows when to use it on us)" has to be ripe for certain things to

happen.

I take an interest in vedas only when either nAlAyira divya

prabandham or Sriman Narayana's authority is at stake during

discussion times. Only from that angle I ask "authentic" people to

supply me information or I myself go to library to check out and if

it confuses me I get in touch with fellow bhAgavathAs to clarify my

doubts. As far I remember,according to Rg veda,agni is the lowest God

and ViShNu is the highest God for worshipping. No one can go against

puruSha sUktam which appears in all the four vedas. The puruSha,who

is responsible for creation,sustentation and destruction of this

Universe refers to none but Sriman Narayana! Vedas do not talk about

only Sriman Narayana(unlike NDP)but lot of other unwanted stuffs.

That's why it confuses people I guess!

Anyways it is divided as karma and brahma kANdam. I have

heard that according emperumAnAr's commentary karma kANdam is a pre-

requisite for brahma kANdam. Karma kANdam deals withh the ritualistic

part like chanting. These chantings have to come from lower abdomen

and women being child bearers are not suited for it! It is no big

deal to convince people along these lines(physiologically). If karma

kANdam in not a pre-requisite then we are faced with the

question: "how can the vedas say that "women and shudras" are not

eligible".

Once dear Sriman lakshmi Narasimhan(active member of this

forum and now most of the active members are sleeping and thanks to

Sri TCA Venkatesan's posts on TirupaLLiezhucci,which wakes us up too

besides Lord SriRanganatha) said that the actual purpose of learning

the vedas is to develop "dasyam/seshatvam". Since women and shudras

already have that trait,they don't or need not go for learning while

the other three varNa lack this and hence there is a need for them to

undergo this vedic study. I told him it makes sense to me!

Vedas are ocean. There are so many things said. Are you

sure you're not reading some unwanted or less knowledgeable stuffs

(smahitas or whatever)and getting confused with the right stuff

(Sriman Narayana as paramAtmA)? After we finish our batchelors we

think we know everything. After the masters,we think we know

something and after phd we (should)think we know nothing! Why?

Because the knowledge/realization dawns that "knowledge is like an

ocean and what we have learnt is not even equal to a droplet". In

batchelors we learn little of everything and hence we think we know

everything while in phd we choose one particular topic(a droplet) and

we study in detail.

I'm sure some bhAgavathAs would answer your queries. I

wanted to share with you what little I know. The word vedas are used

in general. It is actually called samskrt veda which means it is not

the ONLY vedam. There could be another(thamizh) vedam.

That's "drAvida veda sAgaram" NDP. Whatever is not clear in samskrt

veda is "crystal clear" in NDP. That's the superiority and the

greatness of NDP over samskrt vedas! Forgive me for all my

blabberings,incoherence of thoughts and lengthy post.

Best Regards

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

July 28, 2003

Dear Shri nappinnai_nc,

Thank you for your reply (and encouragement)! Let me summarize your

answers and correct me if I am wrong.

1. Most of the doubts will vanish with Lord's Krpaa & (right

association (sat-sangam/bhaagavata sangam??) is required for that

though.

2. The chatur-vedas in sanskrit are actually not all that

important !!! We have to accept them only to the extent that it

doesn't contradict our VishishThadvaita philosophy or prabandham.

3. The reason for Vedas are actually to inculcate

daasatvam/seshatvam. Since shudras & women already have it, they

don't need to study Vedas.

we can safely eliminate #1, as I am a "lost soul" without Lord's

mercy

I have to disagree with #2. I am aware that TK sampradayam gives

equal importance if not more to NDP and considers it on par with

Shruthi. However Shruthi is considered to be the supreme authority

and Shri Ramanujacharya with considerable effort "proves" that our

philosophy is the right interpretation of "Shruthi" and traces

purvacharyas like Baudhayana, Bharuchi, Tanka etc. Almost everybody

Shaivas/Shakthas etc go to various lengths (in the respective

sectarian Puranas) to trace their affiliation with Vedic literature.

However reality is indeed different. The "Karma Kaandam" deals with

Mantrams attributed to "minor devataas" and "Gnyaana kaandam" deals

with unspecified/unnamed Brahman. Exactly because of this, we can

foist our own interpretations on Upanishads and declare anything -

Supposedly Appayya deekshithar's version of Vishisthadvaita has Rudra-

shiva as the supreme Brahman!

I'll defer my comments on #3. A general rejoinder though - What about

women & shudras who don't have "daasatvam"? Should they be taught

Vedas to cultivate it???

KK

July 28, 2003

Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan,

The questions you ask are fine. Your tone is a

little worrisome though, but I will skip that. The

following answers are based on my limited understanding,

so please read them with that in mind (I have told this

before and I repeat - my opinion is that certain things

are better asked to a scholar in person than in a

general forum such as this one, if you genuinely seek

the answers).

1. Regarding low number of references in the Vedas about

Narayana: In order to understand the contents of a work

or to see what its purpose is, one has to just look at

the beginning and the end. If one has to read the whole

work to understand where it is leading, then it is not

well written. This is similar to a singer making it

clear to the audience in the first few minutes what

raaga he/she is singing. Thus, Thiruvaymozhi's purpose

can be seen in the first and last pasurams; Mahabharata's

intent is seen by looking at its beginning and end. So

too it is possible that the Vedas point to Narayana at

the beginning and the end - not being savvy with the

Vedas, I am not sure if this is true. The other

possibility is that as they say "oru pAnai sOrrukku oru

sORu patham", one has to study what the Vedas say

overall about everything and see if the gist of it is

present in the few sections. If so, nothing further is

needed.

2. Our acharyas have made it clear that there are only

certain upanishads and puranas that are considered

valid. The reason being that the others are latter

day additions. Now, being an agnostic I know that you

will find this reasoning invalid, because everyone can

make the same argument. I don't have the details with

me on the history of the upanishads and why some are

considered latter additions - again, you should seek

a scholar on this one.

3. Regarding reading of Vedas by sudras and women.

Based on what I have heard scholars say on this topic,

there is simply no getting around it. This is the fact.

Now, people find this objectionable based on today's

value systems. However, in the past when restrictions

were different and value systems were different, this

was probably not a major issue. Having said that,

the irony is this: if indeed the Vedas are allowed to

be recited by all, how many of those restricted now

are going to go and learn them all? There are many

works that have no restrictions on who can learn them

- if one has mastered them all, then we can wonder

about them and their wish to learn the Vedas; if not

I think there is no no need to worry about learning

them. Second, these days I see many women learning

the Vedas and reciting them in the temples where they

are allowed. No one is stopping them from learning.

Third, even those who are allowed to learn don't

bother to learn it any way. So, we are all arguing

over this only in a theoretical sense, because in

practice no one is learning the Vedas or following

them fully.

3. God is one, but takes many forms. He himself has

declared this in many places. Azhvars too state this

in many pasurams. Vedas say the same. Are the other

religions incorrect in their understanding? Yes,

according to our acharyas and azhvars. Nammazhvar

gives the reason as "ellIrum vIdu peRRAl ulagillai

enRE". If everyone understands their svarUpam and

seeks Him, then this world has to be closed down.

And He has decided not to do that yet. The

objective criterion we use is that we listen to our

acharyas. To an agnostic, this may be unacceptable,

but I know of no other answer.

4. Why shouldn't the Vedas be in Sanskrit? You do

realize that no matter what language it is in, this

question could be asked.

5. Nammazhvar, Thiruppanazhvar belong to the lower

castes - Nammazhvar is considered the leader of all

prapannas and Vedanta Desikar (who is very particular

about varanashrama) wrote a vyakhyanam for amalan

AdipirAn. Now, if you ask me whether today a sudra

can become a Srivaishnava acharya, honestly I would

say that it would be difficult. But, there is

precedence for it and Srivaishnava philosophy is

clear that no one is born a Srivaishnava - so, it

can happen.

6. You can call it a coincidence or call it bhagavat

sankalpam, but Sri Sadagopan Iyengar Swami from

Coimbatore, a prolific writer, just recently posted an

article is one of the sister about the

very same question. I suggest you refer to it if you

can. If not, I will forward a copy of it to you. Just

remember though, that the concept of ahimsa as we

understand it has changed due to buddhist and jainist

influences and may not be the same as the Vedic

understanding of that term.

7. I have heard many such references, particularly by

communist writers in India, on these things. Over the

years I have learned to ignore them, because of this:

Sanskrit allows for very many possibilities of

interpretations of every word and phrase. This allows

for many people to make up their own meanings based

on their own agendas. I just look to how our acharyas

have seen the overall gist of the Vedas and Upanishads

and use that to interpret them in a consistent

fashion.

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

ramanuja, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k>

wrote:

> 1. Vishnu appears to be a minor deity in Rk Vedas. (Totally 6

suktams

> I presume) In fact he is none other than Sun. No description of

him

> as (Shanka-chakra-gadaa-paNi) etc. On the other hand Indra appears

a

> thousand times with other deities like Agni, Pushan, Ashvins,

Dyaava-

> Prithvi, Rbhus, Varuna: etc. So on what basis we claim Vedas as

our

> authorities and Shriman Narayana is mentioned as the supreme in

the

> Vedas? (Of course, I am aware of NarayaNa-Valli in Taittriya

> Aranyakam)

>

> 2. What about the 108 odd upanishads? There are varying number of

> Upanishads that are considered authoritative. But while reading

the

> commentaries, I've seen "sectarian" upanishads quoted. This brings

to

> an interesting question. There is a Shaiva upanishad called

> Sharabhopanishad, in which Shiva taking a form of Sharabha kills

Lord

> Nrusimha!!!!!! I find this extremely offensive. Now, if Upanishads

> are part of Shruthi, and Shruthi is infallible, what about this

> Upanishad? If we ignore this as fake but take "Nrusimha-

> tapni", "gopala-tapini" upanishads as authoritative aren't we

being

> hypocritical? (There aren't major upanishads either).

>

> 3. Why aren't shudras allowed to read vedas? How about women? Even

if

> one is pure by heart and deeds?

>

> 4. Is God one? Then why is he taking different forms in different

> places of earth? God according to Semitic religion is totally

> different from our construction. So are they deluded? What

objective

> criterion would we use to see who is correct and who is not?

>

> 5. Why should the vedas be in Sanskrit? Why not in Tamil or any

other

> vernacular language?

>

> 6. Can a Shudra ever aspire to become a religious figure in our

> tradition?

>

> 7. In Gita-Bhashyam, Shri Ramanuja casually mentions that

sacrificing

> animals during agnishToma is not ahimsa. How so?

>

> 8. Queer practices in Ashwamedha yagnya? (I am not going to give

> details!). Human sacrifice in Purushamedha yagnya? (mentioned in

> Shathapatha brahmana)?

>

> More later.

>

> Regards,

> Kasturi Rangan.

July 29, 2003

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear KK,

We can have misunderstanding even in direct communication let

alone email communication. Glad that you replied to clarify:-)

> 1. Most of the doubts will vanish with Lord's Krpaa & (right

> association (sat-sangam/bhaagavata sangam??) is required for that

> though.

True. It applies in academics too! If I have a doubt in Fluid

dynamics I have to ask a guy who is "fairly" good at it,I can't ask a

computer dude to clarify my doubts:-) This basic principle applies to

each and evry aspect of life.

> 2. The chatur-vedas in sanskrit are actually not all that

> important !!! We have to accept them only to the extent that it

> doesn't contradict our VishishThadvaita philosophy or prabandham.

You have misunderstood my intent. I'm not yet comfortable

with AcArya Hrdhayam as I'm with Sri Vacana BhUShaNam. So,I can't

quote off-handedly. Sri Azhagiya maNavALa perumAL nAyanAr very

clearly talks about this and I'll quote it tomorrow(as I don't have

the book with me right now). To say the truth,in my house we give

superior importance to NDP and infact my father cribs that 24 hrs is

not enough for NDP. BTW,interpretations can not be done according to

one's whims and fancies. It again depends on one's

mental/intellectual skills plus one should strictly restrict oneslef

to the subject matter concerned. I have heard that Adi Shankara

goes "out of" shruti to interpret shruti. That's how apaswaram enters

the scene.

> 3. The reason for Vedas are actually to inculcate

> daasatvam/seshatvam. Since shudras & women already have it, they

> don't need to study Vedas.

True(60-70%) according to me. This is the explanation

given by Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan. It makes sense but how is it

valid in current day world? We come across feminists and other

females who fight for equal rights with men! Anyway I don't belong to

this group. As you said we can discuss this further! I do not know

how to generalise this. But I have seen lot of people belonging to

the last varNa,have more "vinayam" than people belonging to the first

three varNas. Infact I used to hate brahmins for not paying/treating

them properly. Later I realized that they can't be blamed either for

they have been fostered by their parents with wrong vedic knowledge.

I would safely say that still majority(atleast 60%) of women and

sudras have this trait and I doubt about the first three varNas. You

express your views along these lines and I will try to catch up with

you:-)

In this age,we see lot of divorces happening(in indian

community)due to the "low" tolerance level,ego problem because women

are getting financially independent as men are. So there are various

causes that can be attributed to negate #3. What I feel is that

whatever discrepanicies we see now in women,sudras or community as

such is a phase and it will automatically come back to its

equilibrium state. Mind you,I am ZERO in vedas as well as NDP. Don't

question me on technicalities. Just like you,I have lot of doubts in

vedas and I have written them down on a piece of paper and when I see

Sri Chinna Jeeyar,I'm going to request him to clarify my doubts.

You ask fundamental questions! The basic difference between

men and women. Even under the assumption that women are feminists,if

two women are put together they will somehow know about each other's

family story in brief. Where as two men would talk about every thing

other than family. I don't want to generalize this but I have noticed

this with my own eyes and ears many many many times. I used to wonder

how God has made the two species different! Leaving aside the vedas,

why there are no women experts in most of the fields??? You will see

couple of women in English literature,one female scientist like

Madame Curie. This world has not produced any women philospher. If I

remember, Srirangam SribhAShyam Narasimhachar swami said that

Ramanuja says in SBh commentary that women don't have the inherent

desire to learn. According to me,this is true to a great extent!

> we can safely eliminate #1, as I am a "lost soul" without Lord's

> mercy

This alone should increase your level of faith:-) So,is your slip in

faith due to reading some vedic books alone or association with some

atheists and agnostics or something different? I have lot of friends

who are atheists and agnostics. Couple of atheists have changed their

views wrt God after some heated discussions. So let me ask you a

simple question if you don't mind! What is your level of faith at

present?:-) Are you a true atheist,or true agnostic or a theist with

some confused thoughts/doubts in mind? You can also send mails to

nappinnai_nc

Best Regards

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

July 29, 2003

Dear Shri Kasturi Rangan,

First of all, I would like to make it

crystal clear that I don't have even 1% of the knowledge required to answer your

questions. Even Thiruvalluvar had written that Kelvi (questioning) is the best

way to attain gnAnam. Lord Krishna says that one has to humby submit to a

qualified Guru and seek knowledge from him by asking him questions (Tad viddhi

prani pAtena....), infact the whole of Bhagavad Gita is nothing but a long

question answer session!! Therefore, kindly allow me to laud you for the

wonderful questions.

Like I'd written earlier, I can't answer

your questions, but I can offer some suggestions, my own humble opinions.

* You'd written about Vedas and Upanishads, but I guess you might be aware that

most of the Vedas are either lost or remain unattained:

eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura

sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah

atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

‘Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100

sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9

divisions.’

Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas

and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130

Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520

divisions.

At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time.

We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which

constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedas.

This is where the beauty and the greatness of the AzhwArs is realized. They have

given us the essence of all the Shrutis and the Smrtis in their wonderfuls

works, collectively known as the Divya Prabandhams. Any knowledge that is

attained in partiality is not complete. I therefore humbly suggest to have

complete faith in the 4000. To me personally, anything else fades in comparison

to the 4000, beyond doubt.

Please try to have faith on the works of "Vedam Thamizh-seidha MARan" and his

"colleagues" (if I may).

* Having faith is very important, but even gaining faith is not easy. I can't

remember the verse which says that it is very very difficult to get complete

faith on the lotus feet of the Lord. True, Nirhetuka Kripa is important, but why

can't you take your joining this forum itself where you might get knowledge is

due to the Nirhetuka Kripa of the lord??

Krishna says, "Janme karma ca me divyam evam yo veti tattvatah |

tyaktvA deham puNar janma na iti mAm eti so arjuna ||"

which means that if one knows or learns about the past times of the Lord, he is

sure to attain Moksha. What does it mean?? Knowing more about Perumal, the

AzhwArs and the AchAryAs will ensure one's path to Vaikuntha.

* Regarding Sudras and women not being able to learn the vedAs, if one is

interested enough to learn the vedas, he should also be interested in

understanding the knowledge associated with it. The most fundamental knowledge

is that one is born or a shudra or a woman in just this lifetime. One gets the

body of a Shudra, a woman, a kshatriya, a cow, or whatever based on his previous

karma. If a person born in a Shudra body or a woman desires to learn the Vedas

very sincerely, the Lord will make sure that in his/her next birth, he/she will

be born a brahmana. Even better, there is no point in learning the vedas and

upanishads if one surrenders to the Lord.

* nammAzhwAr was not a brahmana by birth, Tirumangai Mannan was a kaLLar, pAnar

was born in a caste even lower than the catur varnas. They are the stalwarts of

Vaishnavism. One of rAmAnujA's gurus, Tirukachchi nambigaL was not a brahmin.

PiLLai urangAvizhi dAsar, one of rAmAnujA's dear most disciples was not a

brahmin.

In kaliyuga, it is really superficial to talk about brahmin-nonbrahmin issues,

even Lord Krishna in many of his pastimes tore the exclusivity of the Brahmins.

Lord gave moksha even to asurAs!!

* Regarding queer practices, there is nothing that is happening today that has

not happened earlier. There is mentioning of queer practices even in Srimad

BhAgavatham, but I personally feel it is totally beyond our goal, and not our

aim. Sage Kapila talks about atheism (sAnkhya yOgA), and that is a part of

Hinduism too!! Does it mean we should follow atheism?? No. "Hinduism" in its

broader sense encompasses all sorts of philosophies, atheism, theism,

monotheism, etc... we are not Hindus. We are SriVaishnavas, rather, aspiring

SriVaishnavas.

* If faith is what the problem is, you are not alone, faith can be achieved only

by the association of the VaishnavAs, engaging your mind more on the leelas of

the Lord, the AzhwArs and the AchAryas. If there is a whole sampradayam that is

blessed with super intelligent and empowered souls in its lineage, it definitely

should have some substance associated with it - in the most scientific or

rational of the views, thats how I look at it.

I seek your pardon if I had said anything unpalatable or lacking sense.

AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLe saranam.

dasan,

Kidambi Soundararajan.

amshuman_k <amshuman_k wrote: