Thanks Mohan

[Guest guest]

Adiyen

 

Thanks Mohan for your helpfull analysis which is enitrely correct. But even

among the "Vaidikas" there have been problems of monotheisitc chauvanism - I

refer to Ramanuja's encounter with Krimikantha Chola. So generally speaking

Sanatana Dharma does have inbuilt checks and balances - but I fear the

tipping of the scale in some of the postings that I read.

 

I lament the fact that Srivaishnavas in general are given to too much

chattering about doctrines, dogmas, definitions of difference and

positioning via-a-vis others, seeming to define themselves as separate and

unique. What I would love to see is more meditation upon the refulgent form

of Narayana. Meditation in the real sense of the Yogic/Tantic practices.

Nammalvar meditated for 16 years before he spoke anything, and we speak too

readily without even a reference to meditation/realisation. Its like

discussing the taste of mangoes but never actually eating one.

 

Instead of meetings where bhaktas gather to chatter, condemn, and engage in

self-praise while filling themselves on pongal and puli-odharai, I would

like to see then sitting in silent meditation.

 

Adiyen

 

Sri Ram

[Guest guest]

SrI:

 

Our sampradhAyam as said by AndAl is "KUde irundhu KulirndehlorenbAvAy"..

 

The problem is "vambu" not the the real meeting of people.

 

small minds usually discuss about vambus and involve in unworthy

perosonal praises etc etc.

 

so dont blame the sampradhAyam.blame the people.

 

Meditation is dhAyAnam who said that our sampradhAyam doesnt include

this?? Infact bramhaviths go one stpe further and involve in chinthanam.

 

I am now getting slowly convinced by the quote that "you are what you

eat".

 

May be the person who posted this is very serious about reformation of

such practices that he ahs witnessed.

 

Yes I agree to his view points as expressed but please dont blame the

sampradhAyam for that.

 

I am forced to think it that way.

 

It makes me to conclude that many posts here are nothing but a

pathetic expression of minds that are influenced by socialism and

secularism.(as seen from christianity point of view) or at times

expression of superior(limited) knowledge or utter confusion or a

strong conviction that the sampradhyAm is nothing but mad outcries of

jobless and idle people.

 

This is strong langguage yes. but I believe that the posts deserves this.

 

Asking a doubt and getting a clarification is different from stating a

wrong point about sampradhAyam and getting answers that it deserves.

 

Has the writer read the full story and events that took place during

the life os sri rAmAnujA to decry and simply term the kirumi kanta

cholan episode as "monotheisitc chauvanism"??

 

It is easy to coin words and describe events with such a mind whose

flow of thoughts pass only through a contracted and constrained path...

 

Please spare our achAryAs.. dont drag them to mud because of your

limited and often biased knowledge of our sath sampradhAyam.

 

regards

Venkat

 

ramanuja, purohit@b... wrote:

> Adiyen

>

> Thanks Mohan for your helpfull analysis which is enitrely correct.

But even

> among the "Vaidikas" there have been problems of monotheisitc

chauvanism - I

> refer to Ramanuja's encounter with Krimikantha Chola. So generally

speaking

> Sanatana Dharma does have inbuilt checks and balances - but I fear the

> tipping of the scale in some of the postings that I read.

>

> I lament the fact that Srivaishnavas in general are given to too much

> chattering about doctrines, dogmas, definitions of difference and

> positioning via-a-vis others, seeming to define themselves as

separate and

> unique. What I would love to see is more meditation upon the

refulgent form

> of Narayana. Meditation in the real sense of the Yogic/Tantic practices.

> Nammalvar meditated for 16 years before he spoke anything, and we

speak too

> readily without even a reference to meditation/realisation. Its like

> discussing the taste of mangoes but never actually eating one.

>

> Instead of meetings where bhaktas gather to chatter, condemn, and

engage in

> self-praise while filling themselves on pongal and puli-odharai, I would

> like to see then sitting in silent meditation.

>

> Adiyen

>

> Sri Ram

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

Adiyen has some views that are a little different from this. As Smt

Nappinnai mentioned in one of the earlier posts, satsangam is

important. And the, members of the satsangam must understand the

purpose, the goal and the rules. The idea of satsangam is to

brainstorm, get more knowledge, get references to purvacharya's work

etc. This adds value. One need not go through 16 years of what swami

Nammazhwar went through, rather, use his experience via swami

Nampillai's eedu vyakyanam. Similarly, we must bank on other's

experience, for our life isn't enough to sit and meditate or

experience ourselves. At the same time, meditation adds value in

terms of giving a peaceful mind, thus, developing a discipline,

giving an opportunity to digest what was learnt, to analyse and

improve/correct those acts that we have performed etc. Whether it is

satsangam(external knowledge) or introspection/meditation, it must be

properly channelled. This group is a valuable satsangam. We all

understand the purpose of this group i.e to understand our tradition

better. As long as no one perceives personal offense, this is a great

(virtual) place to participate, share, question, clarify and what

not, about our sampradayam.

 

As swami pointed out, definitions of difference etc could be avoided

until we reach a point where we first understand our sampradayam to

the fullest extent. But at the same time, the meditation in the

yogic/tantric senses are completely unnecessary, for, as azhwar

said "oon vaada unnadhu uyir kavalittu... thaan vaada vaada thavam

seyya venda", one need not control everything, sitting in a place to

meditate. Our ancestors have gone through that pain to reveal the

knowledge which is now readily available for us via our acharyans. We

have to seek our acharyans and just grab that from them and share it

with more and more people and "try to follow the same".

 

At this point I have a humble request. I see more questions coming

in, but only very few are answered at a satisfactory layman level. I

request great scholars like Shri Velukkudi Swami, Shri MAV Swami and

other giants to drop a post once a while whenever they find time, to

answer us, the ignorant ones, and help us too, to get past these

chaos, one step at a time.

 

Kindly pardon my mistakes/ignorance.

 

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jaamaataram Munim

 

Adiyen,

Ramanuja Dasan

 

ramanuja, purohit@b... wrote:

> Adiyen

>

> I lament the fact that Srivaishnavas in general are given to too

much

> chattering about doctrines, dogmas, definitions of difference and

> positioning via-a-vis others, seeming to define themselves as

separate and

> unique. What I would love to see is more meditation upon the

refulgent form

> of Narayana. Meditation in the real sense of the Yogic/Tantic

practices.

> Nammalvar meditated for 16 years before he spoke anything, and we

speak too

> readily without even a reference to meditation/realisation. Its like

> discussing the taste of mangoes but never actually eating one.

>

> Instead of meetings where bhaktas gather to chatter, condemn, and

engage in

> self-praise while filling themselves on pongal and puli-odharai, I

would

> like to see then sitting in silent meditation.

>

> Adiyen

>

> Sri Ram

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sri Ram,

I am sorry that somewhere down the line I ended up

being a little too offensive. Kindly accept my

apologies. I too share most of the concerns expressed

by you in the sense that we should focus on our

primary interest as a Srivaishnavite, that is

"Bhagavadanubhavam". Still, I beg to differ from you

and Sri Kasturi Rangan (I do not imply here that you

two have any common opinion on any issue discussed

here) both in terminology of your concern and your

mechanism of reaching conclusions based on what looked

to me like an independent study of our

scriptures.While acknowledging that my knowledge of

scriptures is limited compared to what you seem to

have (based on your postings), I continue to raise

points such as following, within my understanding of

our Sampradayik position. Kindly bear with me:

 

1. I was under the impression that the purpose of

whole discussion was to gain some understanding of how

our Purvacharyas established the "Narayana paratvam"

based on scriptures (both Purva and Uttara Mimamsa).

If that is true the discussion went too far away from

this issue, rather in opposite direction. Now you have

also ended up implying 1. Narayana is impersonal 2.

Narayana is not Vishnu alone (or probably something

like Vishnu alone can not claim Narayanahood, every

other diety in Vedic pantheon has right to this claim

- Sri Kasturi Rangan goes even farther than you to

establish how insignificant was Vishnu in the eyes of

Vedic seers) 3. Somehow something is wrong in efforts

to experience "Bhagavadanubhavam" other than

yogic/tantric meditation on impersonal Narayana.I dare

to say that in all these points you drastically differ

from Sampradayik position

of our Purvacharyas.Now, I would like to know whether

the whole effort is to say that our sampradayam is

fundamentally flawed, then this needs a long and

enlightened debate with learned people in Siddhanta. I

guess this sceen is not very new to our Sampradayam as

we had many poorvapakshis over the ages who argued on

these lines. If the idea is to say that some kind of

reform is needed in our Sampradayam, then stop arguing

with terminology borrowed from others. Do you realise

that what you are using is essentially Smarta/Adviatic

language (Your concept of abstract Narayana implies

some form of attributeless Narayana, Your suggestion

about Yogic meditation is more on lines of sadhana

prescribed by advaitins, They can afford to that

anyway, because they are going to dump their Narayana

on the way and become "Brahman" on their own. Now you

dont deduce that my monotheistic chauvinism is making

me disrespect other points of view. The reality is far

from it. Adviatis, particularly Neovedantins,

generally tend to treat our position with patronising

derision as somthing coming out of lesser

intelligence.I do not have any qualms about Advitins

because they follow what their Acharyas teach). All

this implies some kind of inferiority complex about

our tradition, in my opinion, mainly emerging out of

lack of faith or exposure, which is not called for in

the votaries of a long lasting tradition.

 

2. Your persistence of quoting from Rigveda and

insistence on treating it as some kind of superior

evidence baffles me no end. I feel that you can put

whole argument in the context of "Pramana vyavasta" of

our Sampradayam.You can atleat go with "Prasthana

Trayam" as they are accepted as worth commenting by

all Acharyas of Vedantic tradition. Anyway, you seem

to have some aversion to Puranas and Itihasas. The

only idea of accepting this as pramana, as I

understand, is that these are the works of Veda Vyasa

and other parama Rishis, whose understanding of Shruti

is unquestioned. Then and then alone, this discussion

becomes worth while for laymen like me. Other wise it

ends up sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of young

adherents of Sampradayam. I do not say that we should

not rationally study our own tradition. As a matter of

fact it is fundamental to inclucating faith. But, true

understanding demands razor thin intellect, time and

sincere effort. And also constant alertness against

falling in to wrong conclusions. Alternatively, it is

my belief that one can also stand on the shoulders of

the Gaints (Our Purvacharyas) and gain the glimpses

of Bhagadanubhavam.

 

3. I also do not believe that there is any need to be

intolerent to other systems, as they are any way

beautifully reconciled with our own belief in works of

our Purvacharyas. At the same time kindly ponder over

one point. How may followers do we have in our

Sampradayam. I am not talking in terms of "True"

followers etc. In absolute numbers. Not really great.

We have a beautiful legacy. We can not hand it down

the generations unless we muster enough faith in it.

If you do not, kindly make effort ( This is not meant

for Sriman Sri Ram; general rhetoric) and see if this

Sampradayam offers you anything worth following, under

the guidence of a learned Acharya. Till then kindly

reserve your damning judgements. If you are convinced

doo something such that the Sampradayam lives on. This

is also some sort of "Rishi runam".

4. I intend this as my last mail in this thread of

discussion.Forgive me for unnecessary lecturing.With

due apologies to Sriman Sri Ram and Srima Kasturi

Rangan.

Adiyen

Srinivasadasa

 

--- purohit wrote:

> Adiyen

>

> Thanks Mohan for your helpfull analysis which is

> enitrely correct. But even

> among the "Vaidikas" there have been problems of

> monotheisitc chauvanism - I

> refer to Ramanuja's encounter with Krimikantha

> Chola. So generally speaking

> Sanatana Dharma does have inbuilt checks and

> balances - but I fear the

> tipping of the scale in some of the postings that I

> read.

>

> I lament the fact that Srivaishnavas in general are

> given to too much

> chattering about doctrines, dogmas, definitions of

> difference and

> positioning via-a-vis others, seeming to define

> themselves as separate and

> unique. What I would love to see is more meditation

> upon the refulgent form

> of Narayana. Meditation in the real sense of the

> Yogic/Tantic practices.

> Nammalvar meditated for 16 years before he spoke

> anything, and we speak too

> readily without even a reference to

> meditation/realisation. Its like

> discussing the taste of mangoes but never actually

> eating one.

>

> Instead of meetings where bhaktas gather to chatter,

> condemn, and engage in

> self-praise while filling themselves on pongal and

> puli-odharai, I would

> like to see then sitting in silent meditation.

>

> Adiyen

>

> Sri Ram

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Srinivasachary,

Kindly forgive me if I have offended you in my reply. I understand

that your reply was for both me and Shri Sriram and I'll try to

clarify my position.

 

1. The context:

I recently pointed out the on-going 'assualt' on our religion (in

broader sense) which isn't good news for us, Shri Vaishnavas in

particular. You yourself pointed out we are a numerically

insignificant population when contrasted with other ethno-demographic

groups. Thanks to marxist historians, eurocentrist scholars and neo-

vedantins, people nominally adhering to our tradition end up self-

hating one (you might be thinking I am one too :-) ). You are very

correct in pointing out the 'patronizing attitude' of neo-vedantins

towards Vishistadvaita philosophy.

Are our younger generation taught about our philosophy, ritual,

tradition? Not really right? This in itself is only part of the

problem. A complementary issue is that, what they are exposed to? (I

am not implying whatever they are exposed to are all wrong). A mixed

baggage - Vedanta as interpreted by Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna,

for example (if at all they are interested in 'spiritual aspects' of

our culture. May be I am giving too much credit and they are only

interested in who is the next big thang - Dhanush or Madhavan,

jyothika or sneha :-) - maybe for sophisticated ones, replace with

hollywood thespians). Probably our spiritually inclined spawns know

more about 'yoga', 'kundalini', 'tantra', 'meditation', 'Max Mueller'

than Lokacharya or Desika.

I am trying to follow a methodology in this situation, which brings

us to the next section.

 

2. Methodology:

I feel there comes a point in time, when old methodologies need to be

reconsidered. You pointed out that probably I had an aversion to

itihAsas and purANAs. I stand accused (partially). To give an

analogy, bible scholars after research have concluded that the new

testament (NT) wasn't written all at once. The earliest part of

currently known gospel (of Mark) was written somewhere around AD 70

and other gospels were written even later. This is all nonsense for a

believing christian. We as outsiders can objectively look at the

arguments given by the scholars and see whether they are logically

compelling, right?

How can a purANa be an authority, if it talks about Queen Victoria,

Muhammad, Jesus, rehashed story of Adam & Eve, rehashed story of

Noah's ark etc. (Bhavishyat purANa)? The most logical explanation is

that this is a text that was continuously changing down till 19th

century, right? So, it turns out that not one person was the author

of the purANa right? Careful analysis of all the purANas reveal that

they have been written and re-written a lot of times and

contain 'old' as well as 'new' materials - (sections of vAyu purANa

goes back to the time of vedas). Of course these are all nonsense to

a 'believer'.

What is better for us to do now? To anticipate these objections and

try to answer them or take a passive stance that our 'pUrvAchAryas

took them as pramANa'? There was a time when you can get away

with 'it is true because it is said so in Apastambha dharma sUtra or

mahabharata or Vishnu purANa'. I am simply pointing out that this is

not the case anymore and if we want to guard our tradition from

attacks (intentional or unintentional), we have to use an updated

methodology now (our acharyas can't be blamed for not foreseeing what

type of objections would emerge in 20th century).

Something being a late composition is not necessarily an objection

for using it as a pramANa. But we have to be careful and keep in mind

that Veda Vyasa need not be the author of the texts we are having now

as purANas.

 

3. The position of Vedas (and ancillary literature of Vedas):

I wouldn't have touched this if we hadn't claimed we accept the

entire Shruthi as authority. You mentioned that I went 'to the extent

of proposing Vishnu was insignificant according to Vedic Seers'.

(a) I don't claim that NarayaNa is impersonal.

(b) Legitimacy of other vedic 'deities' claim to be brahman:

If we accept the 'entire shruthi' as pramANa, rudra is mentioned

as 'devAnAm parama:' supreme God in Taittriya Aranyaka and also

termed as pashupathi. Brihaspathi is called brahman!!!!! in numerous

places in the very first khanda of taittriya samhita. This is no

different from another line in nArAyaNopanishad which says 'nArAyaNa

param brahma'. Do you think we have to turn a blind eye to all these

with the escape sequence 'all vedanta acharyas didn't doubt

NarayaNa's paratvam?'.

© Insignificance of 'Vishnu':

Again this comes from our stance that 'Vedas are the supreme

authority' or even 'if two dharma sutras differ on an issue, we have

to take them as alternatives' and 'if the dharma sutra contradicts

shruthi, shruthi vakya overrides the dharma sutra'. We see such an

importance given to Vedas. Shouldn't we re-think the position of

Vedas, especially if Vishnu really is treated as 'just another deity'

in vedas? How many passages do we see in yajur veda - "11 butter

oblations to aditi, 9 oblations to soma, 12 oblations to vishnu, 15

butter oblations to Indra' - casual enumeration of Gods and Vishnu

among them?

Krishna & Balarama were called sons of Devaki in Chandogya BrahmaNam

(or in the section of the brAhmaNam popularly called as chandogya

upanishad). They were also mentioned as pupils of Rishi Sandipini.

Interestingly we find no superlative adjectives to Krishna or him

being avatara of Vishnu. This is simply one of the numerous

references where rishis and their shishyas were mentioned - like

upakoshala disciple of Jaabala satyakama or Dadhyanc teaching madhu

vidya to (Ashvins and ...forgot the name of other students).

While this reference is useful to point out the historical nature of

Krishna (somebody called Krishna, son of devaki had to exist), it is

very likely that chandogya brAhmaNam was composed before Krishna

became identified as avatara of Vishnu.

 

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

 

P.S.

Sorry for the rambling

 

 

 

 

 

ramanuja, srinivasa chary <srinivasadasa>

wrote:

> Dear Sri Sri Ram,

> I am sorry that somewhere down the line I ended up

> being a little too offensive. Kindly accept my

> apologies. I too share most of the concerns expressed

> by you in the sense that we should focus on our

> primary interest as a Srivaishnavite, that is

> "Bhagavadanubhavam". Still, I beg to differ from you

> and Sri Kasturi Rangan (I do not imply here that you

> two have any common opinion on any issue discussed

> here) both in terminology of your concern and your

> mechanism of reaching conclusions based on what looked

> to me like an independent study of our

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear Kasturi,

Your post(with all termilogies)really scared me:-) There

is something called "core" and something called the "wrap". The

wrapper can be changed to suit the particular times/yuga. But the

core remains the same/constant. It is like Universal laws of physics.

I don't think our pUrvAcAryas were worried about the wrapper! They

only protected and guarded the "core". Meaning they spent their

energies in preserving and proving the "paratvam" of Sriman Narayana.

If I were in your position, I would think "if someone has to be my

guru in any walks of life,he/she should be atleast equal or superior

to me so that I become a better person. Otherwise they can not help

me in curing my flaws(rajasic and tamasic)". Precisely for this

reason I am unable to think the demi-gods as my god! Kindly pardon me

if I had offended yours or anyoneelse's feelings.

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai