dangerous similarity between our sampradaya & abrahamic religion

[Guest guest]

Dear bhAgavatas,

 

One of the difference between the two kalais is the nature of

kaivalyam. Both sampradAyas accept kaivalyam is inferior to bhagavad-

sAyujyam/parama padam. However, the thenkalai position is that - it

is permanent; (from the explanation of a TK Acharya), the jIvan made

a bad decision; it asked for it, aspired for it and got it. So, it is

stuck with it.

Isn't this dangerously similar to a christian claim that "accept

Jesus or you will goto eternal hell?" (You make a bad decision of not

accepting christ; you asked for it and got it). I request

clarifications from learned bhAgavatas.

 

Regards,

KK

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Kasturi Rangan,

 

It may not seem to be dangerous to all! The issue of Kaivalya mOskha

and the ThennAchArya position is likely to be addressed in the coming

updates of our yatirajadasa website. At this moment, I do not have

much idea. Learend bhAgavatas may answer your question.

 

Regards

Vishnu

 

ramanuja, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k> wrote:

> Dear bhAgavatas,

>

> One of the difference between the two kalais is the nature of

> kaivalyam. Both sampradAyas accept kaivalyam is inferior to

bhagavad-

> sAyujyam/parama padam. However, the thenkalai position is that - it

> is permanent; (from the explanation of a TK Acharya), the jIvan

made

> a bad decision; it asked for it, aspired for it and got it. So, it

is

> stuck with it.

> Isn't this dangerously similar to a christian claim that "accept

> Jesus or you will goto eternal hell?" (You make a bad decision of

not

> accepting christ; you asked for it and got it). I request

> clarifications from learned bhAgavatas.

>

> Regards,

> KK

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri VishNu:

Please provide the URL of the website. Does the website discusses

other theological differences between the kalais too?

Let me also add one more thing to the original question - I am aware

that kaivalya, though inferior is not like christian hell, where a

soul burns for eternity (and hence the comparison between kaivalya

and hell is incorrect). However, I am not comparing kaivalya with

hell. My point is on the jIvan being indefinitely held there, when a

superior alternative exists.

 

Thanks & regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

 

P.S.

I apologize if my posts have offended you in past. I don't have any

intention to offend a vaishNava.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Kasturi Rangan,

 

You have rightly analyzed the issue of Kaivalya mOksha and your

opinion is mine.

 

As I wrote in my previous mail, this issue is going to come up only

in the future, in our website. The article is not yet made by the

author. Before this, one article on Tamil literature, another on

ThirukkaNNapuram are in queue. Right now we have only ashtaSlOkI at

the follwoing URL:

 

http://www.geocities.com/yatirajadasa/ashtasloki

 

You may please send your comments to the id provided there . But

please be cautious in the wording since thriumantrArtham is the most

respected theory in the sampradAyam.

 

you have developed very good insight into vEdas. But some of the

passages as understood by you are seemingly against our sampradAyam.

So please post such passages with a question mark in

where you are a member, so that we will all be benefited

by the opinion of the greatest vEdic ascetic of today.

 

Ramanuja Dasan

Vishnu

 

-

-- In ramanuja, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k> wrote:

> Dear Sri VishNu:

> Please provide the URL of the website. Does the website discusses

> other theological differences between the kalais too?

> Let me also add one more thing to the original question - I am

aware

> that kaivalya, though inferior is not like christian hell, where a

> soul burns for eternity (and hence the comparison between kaivalya

> and hell is incorrect). However, I am not comparing kaivalya with

> hell. My point is on the jIvan being indefinitely held there, when

a

> superior alternative exists.

>

> Thanks & regards,

> Kasturi Rangan .K

>

> P.S.

> I apologize if my posts have offended you in past. I don't have any

> intention to offend a vaishNava.

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImath vara vara munayE namaha

srI annan thiruvadigalE saranam

 

Dear bhAgavathAs,

kaivalyam is not a bad decision that is being made by a jIva. We all

know that bhagavAn is the show runner and he provides the result of

every act performed by us. Those who ask for swargam are given the

same based on their punyams that they accumulate. Same with paapis.

They are given hell as they deserve the same. In case of kaivalyam,

the TK position is that, the jIva is performing upAsanai of itself.

Well, the point is, jIva is a nithya vasthu. So, if the jIva demands

an eternal self worship (nithya jIva upAsanai), it cannot be given a

place in the lIla vibhuthi. So, bhagavAn gives these jIvas a place

in the eternal abode i.e the nithya vibhuthi. But, due to the very

nature of this worship(self worship), the place becomes devoid of

bhagavadh / bhAgavadha - kadAksham, ArAdhanam etc. That is why this

place is compared to a cemetry (yedu nilam in tamil). This cemetry

exists in the nithy vibhuthi and is worse than the hell, for, a jIva

could recover from hell and could be given a chance to attain

moksham whereas kaivalyarthis never get a chance to perform

bhagavadh ArAdhanam again. The only hope for kaivalyarthis would be,

the sankalpam of bhagavAn, that could bring them out of that place.

 

Reg: Both sampradAyas accept kaivalyam as an inferior position to

the bhagavad-sAyujyam/parama padam

 

Yes. Kailvalyam is inferior from the perspective of both the

sampradayams, but, per, vedAnta desikar, one could recover from that

place. Also, per vedAnta desikar, there is no concept of the various

types of mokshams sAyujyam(no swapravrutti, prapatthi is not an

upAyam, bhagavadh mukha ullAsame purushArtham-defectless), sArupyam

(no swapravrutti, but the defect is using prapatthi as upAyam),

sAmeepyam(defect is swapravrutti - bhagavadh upaasakaas) or sAlokyam

(kaivalyam) - there is just one and only one moksham.

 

adiyen would like to stand corrected if I had made any mistakes. All

of the above information are based on adiyen's weak understandings

from upanyasams. Kindly pardon my mistakes if any.

 

Adiyen,

Ramanuja Dasan

 

Azhwar Emperumaanaar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Saranam

PS: Post has nothing to do with blaming or mentioning the the TK or

the VK sampradayam is wrong. Intent is just to share the information

grasped in upanyasams. Corrections are most welcome.

 

ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu> wrote:

> Dear Sriman Kasturi Rangan,

>

> It may not seem to be dangerous to all! The issue of Kaivalya

mOskha

> and the ThennAchArya position is likely to be addressed in the

coming

> updates of our yatirajadasa website. At this moment, I do not have

> much idea. Learend bhAgavatas may answer your question.

>

> Regards

> Vishnu

>

> ramanuja, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k>

wrote:

> > Dear bhAgavatas,

> >

> > One of the difference between the two kalais is the nature of

> > kaivalyam. Both sampradAyas accept kaivalyam is inferior to

> bhagavad-

> > sAyujyam/parama padam. However, the thenkalai position is that -

it

> > is permanent; (from the explanation of a TK Acharya), the jIvan

> made

> > a bad decision; it asked for it, aspired for it and got it. So,

it

> is

> > stuck with it.

> > Isn't this dangerously similar to a christian claim that "accept

> > Jesus or you will goto eternal hell?" (You make a bad decision

of

> not

> > accepting christ; you asked for it and got it). I request

> > clarifications from learned bhAgavatas.

> >

> > Regards,

> > KK