Guest guest Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Dear Sri.Gopalakrishna, I absolutely agree with you.In many places even in Trivandrum Anantha Padmanabha swamy worships Siva when he is lying on the serpent and one can see him worshipping Siva below his right hand.So too as pointed out by Keerthy Kumar in Rameswaram Sri Rama worships Siva.The same I too stressed that there are no differences between vaishnavas and saivites.But the way in which Krishnadaya attacked the advaita greats like Sankara and euologising only the Vaishnava acharyas like Ramanuja ,Madhwa etc I felt bad.They hv got their own methods of intrepretation and depending on individual tastes one can worship in any form of God according to one's choice.That does not mean that what they worship and what acharyas they follow are the only superiors and attacking the other equally great acharyas like Sankara though she has not mentioned him by name but in essence referred to him only when she attacked Sankara ,a great advaita can't be digested.As I know Krishnadaya is the product of ISCKON and the devotion of Krishna Conscious movement made to make such comments. Though Krishnadaya is my friend and we hv exchanged mails previously talking rubbish things like this is not in good taste.Let Krishnadaya be a devotee of Krishna and nobody objects and it is the individual freedom.But that does not give any blanket authority to praise one set of acharyas and deride another set who preached differently.Further by this Krishnadaya also mentioned that such comments will confuse the Krishna devotees.Why they shuld be confused?I can't understand.So the confusion is on the part of Krishnadaya and not on the part of the devotees of Sri Guruvayoorappan. In fact Sri.Gopalakrishna, I never wanted to reply to that mail but when the attack comes as if there seems to be some conversion effects of saivaites to make vaishnavites into saivites I could not keep but had to reply.It seems Krishnadaya is only a naive in such matters with such fixed mindset up and could not digest other things also becoz of the connection of Krishna Conscious movement such things come out automatically.It is something like that in Tamilnadu in Iyengars there are two sets Vadagalai and Tengalai and they treat each other as if other sect is untouchable though the trend has changed to a great extent still the same is prevalent in some parts. Anyways there is no need for me to convince Krishnadaya on this and it is left to individual choices but I only wanted to confine the bhakthy to Krishna and attacking great acharyas with the sub standard knowledge one possesses though the claim may be different.I don't wish to go futher in detail as I know Krishnadaya and her group well.I must thank you for correcting me abt the vaishnava concept and why there shuld be a request for pardon when I always enjoyed to hear the views of others.So such sentences are not at all necessary and people like you are there only to guide if some are wrong in their views and your opinions are always welcomed.Thanks a lot Sri.Gopalakrishna for your humble way of putting the matters as you are more aged than me and it is your right to correct me if I am wrong and I will always accept such corrections and I always value experience and true knowledge of others. Regards, agraman. "K.V Gopalakrishna" <gopalakrishna.kv wrote: Dear Sri. Ganapathy Raman, Krishnadaya and others.Radhe Krishna.There seems to be a small wrong understanding about the term "Vaishnava.". The term "Vaishnava" is referred to also in many places in Bhagavatam. It means "the one who worships Vishnu". It is wrong to assume that a socalled "Vaishnava" can only worship Vishnu. Vishnu Himself is said to be worshipping Lord Siva in many places. So it is the understanding of the term "Vaishnava" makes all the difference.Kindly pardon me for the interference.In humble devotion,KVG.GANAPATHY RAMAN wrote: So according to Krishnadaya only people who are Vaishnavites are expected to visit and worship Sri Guruvayurappan and when the main Deity plays prominent role sub deities don't hv much importance.This seems to be a strange theory that only Vaishnavites shuld visit Krishna temples and Saivites visit Siva temples and thereby distinquishing even the very nature of God and splitting Him into two parts as Vaishnava God and Saiva God.Quite strange.There is no necesiity for any argument as this requires only commonsense that all people who visit Krishna temple at Guruvayur are not Vaishnavites as Krishnadaya may imagine.They also worshiip Siva ,Sastha and other deities of Saivites.Why shuld God be baulkanised as Vaishnava God and Saiva God?In Siva temples too we hv vaishnava deities and all worship that and no disputes. Krishnadaya must also understand that Narayaneeyam might hv been made by Melpathur but the glory of the same was spread allover India and abroad by the late Anantharama Deekshidar who was a doyen of discourses and when he was afflicted by illness he went to GVR and worshipped Sri Krishna thru Narayaneeyam and in course got his disease cured and from then onwards wherever he went for doing discourses he made it a point to discourse Narayaneeyam and by that only many people came to know even the existence of such a hymn.Perhaps you may not be aware this fact.That is why even his photo is adorned along with bhatthathiri in GVR temple.He was not a vaishnava but an ardent Saiva.So don't try to make your conclusion that Sri Guruvayurappan belongs to only people who are Vaishanavites and all who visit the temple are vaishnavas.That has stemmed from your imagination.I am not arguing with you as it is a waste I know as you hv a definite mind set up which can't accept other things.This I mentioned even in my reply earlier. Just by writing a comment an ardent devotee of Krishna won't change or get confused as you imagine and if the devotee does the same then he or she is not a devotee of Sri Krishna.Arguments wll always be there and not necessarily be taken as a matter of conversion from one sect to another sect.Just becoz the vaishnava acharyas reject advaita followers of Sankara and others can that argument be accepted and do you think it has any sanctity?This seems to be some conversion theory never believe advaita and only what vaishnava acharyas said believe those things.Such things shuld not hv been written as the same will only confuse the real bhakthas of Sri Krishna.who will get the impression of worshipping saivite Gods like Siva and others are against religious spirit.You believe in whatever things as I hv already said in my earlier reply that all depends on individuals perceptions and convictions.But ridiculing Sankara undoubtedly the Greatest of all and praising only the vaishnava acharyas is not the proper way of presenting the matter and shows your immaturity only.You must hv the broad vision to accept all things enunciated by all the acharyas and not confining yourself in some shelf. Anyways there is no meaning to say to you who can't hv the mind to accept the views of others also and clinging to one particular thing and rejecting all the other Great people who brought glory to India, is simply futile.I hv never criticised Gita,Bhagavatham and you imagine something as if I am trying to wean away the devotees of Krishna to some other sect.I am not for any such move but definitely your writings show you are on that path which is simply ridiculous and pitiable.For your info I am not for Vaishnava sect or Saiva sect as I love both sects and worship the Gods of both sects and also a good follower of Sri Guruvayurappan and I may hv my own Ishta Devata and that is personal. Again I say I wrote the reply not to offend you neither this one or the previous one but only to make you understand that you shuld hv more broad views on spiritual matters and not live like a frog in a well.God Bless dear friend Krishnadaya. and don't get agitated by this reply as I hv told only the truth and as an answer to your reply.Let us stop with this as you hv certain mind set which does not allow to make your thinking broader and you must accept the fact that God is One whether Vaishnava God or Saiva God. <krishnadaya > wrote Krishna, Guruvayoorappa,It is not advisable to argue when someone questions the fundamental supreme authority of Sri Krishna as well as His literary incarnations and restricts the scope of discussion to non-vaishnava saints . As such, this write up is just to remove the confusion in the minds of Krishna-bhaktas who were disturbed by the mentioned distortion . When a Vaishnava goes to Guruvayoor temple , he/she worships the presiding Deity Guruvayoorappan as well as the sub-deities therein namely Siva, Ganesha , Bhagavathy and Ayyappan . As such the question of spiritual intolerance doesn't arise . Ishta-devatha is a term meaning "the God one prays most." Sri Krishna is the `Ishta-devatha of Vaishnavas for whom focused Bhakti-Yoga to Him is like life-air . Vaishnava authorites like Ramanuja , Madhava , Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Melpathur Naryana Bhattathiri ,and Prabhupada have asked their followers to remain steadfast in their Bhakri-yoga by fully complying with Bhagavan's instructions . In fact , these Acharyas strongly rejected the Maya-vadi philosophy of the Advaitists . Accordingly, the Vaishnavas are relying on specific scriptures like Bhagavatham , Gita and Narayaneeyam which have the stamp of approval by Bhagavan Krishna Himself . And Bhagavan provides His Devotees with opportunities and wisdom to understand the concepts of the mentioned scriptures . A designer has to comply with the specified codes and standards in order to produce an acceptable product . Same way , a Vaishnava complies with the eternal instructions of Sri Krishna without fail . There is no difference between Sri Krishna , His His attributes and His instructions . Bhagavad Gita is relevant for all ages . Even in this Kali-yuga , Gita guides it's followers in the right path. A humble servant of Guruvayoorappan . -------------------------guruvayur , GANAPATHY RAMAN <agraman62 wrote:>> This is only my thoughts and in no way be treated as a rebuttal of Krishnadayas postings as I hv already made known Krishnadaya is a devotee of Krishna and could not tolerate anything is said other than Krishna.But the fact is that Krishna is only one of the eversomany Gods in our Hindu mythology.Though His avatar was different from others and He preached Gita it becomes easier to quote from what He said.My point is then what abt other Gods and their followers who also get the same benefits which Krishna promised.Krishna told only arjuna in a battlefield His teachings.Following the same in all circumstances won't lead us > in the present age as many of them are not practicable.He taught arjuna only to surrender to Him and fight the war instead of running out of the battle field and do the duty of a Kshatriya.So just banking only on Gita alone for all the ills of the society won't help much,I think.The teachings happened abt 4 or 5000 years ago in a different yuga and applying all the tenets in the present age will lead only to confusion.This does not mean I challenge Krsihnadaya but her wordings used seem to be not correct,I feel.> > Krishnadaya uses that jnanis is also devotees and there arise duality and such things.She harps on devotion and diluting the same amounts to absurdity.May be she is correct.But how devotion comes?Is it by seeing a Deity or by reading some texts or Gita? She elaborately quoted from Bhagavatam.Just becoz this Group is dedicated Sri Guruvayoorappan is it a must that one shuld quote only > from Gita,Bhagavatam and Narayaneeyam.Is there any compulsion.Or the scriptures mean only these three.Then what abt Nayanmars who are 64 in number who worshipped Siva and made lot of hymns in praise of Him.Are they not followers or devotees?Sankara ,an acknowledged advaitin wrote Saundarya > Lahiri,a beautiful celestial song on Devi shuld be ignored?He was no doubt a> Realised soul and he never wrote that hymn for himself as there was no necessity for him as when one merged in the God there is no dualism but all can't become like him and hence he coined so many hymns on Devi ,Ananda Lahiri on Siva,Bhaja Govindam on Krishna,Subrahmanya bhujangam on Subrahmanya and there was no necesiity for him to do all those things when he knew he was only writing the same on himself being one with God but for the > other mortals like Krishnadaya and me to develop the bhakthy marga so that people like us can recite the same and try to evolve ourselves in the ladder of bhakthy.> So too Ramakrishna Paramahansa worshipped Kali and got her vision and thru Her Grace got all the knowledge though he did not study much abt the scriptures and other things but becoz of the Grace he could quote so many teachings.The same thing is with sage Ramana who took a different path by > having his own theory to find out whatwas he and thru 'atma vichara' he dived within himself and found that he was also a speck of the Creator.All Realised souls or jnanis though initially they hv to be bhakthas of some deitiy and thru severe austerities and spiritual discipline were able to merge in the Cosmic Power and there was no necessity for them to become a devotee again as they hv crossed that stage and when they had realised that all are ONE then who shuld be a devotee for whom?As we were having the same problem earlier I mentioned that the river is a river by name only so long the same reaches the ocean and when the same merges with the ocean then the identity of the river is lost and do you want to say that the ocean is a devotee of the river or vice versa when the river has already become one with the ocean?> As I don't hv much knowledge abt sastras I can't comment on that.But how many sastras you know and do you know the meaning of what they import to the understanding of common people like me.We always hv readymade answer that such and such thing is said in sastras,Krishna has said such things in Gita,> Bhagavatham says such and such things and so we shuld follow.Then are we not becoming something like a robot without really understanding and try to improve our own knowledge?For anything and everything we depend on some texts mean we just surrender our God given intelligence and wisdom to those quotes.Don' you think so?Why man is given intelligence and wisdom?To use it > in a way that he or she shuld be able to study and try to understand both the aspects positive and negative and the applicability of the same in the times we live in and not moving back to several thousand years .We shuld try to study those things and also use our own versions and realise the reality according to change of times.What Gita says or Bhagavatham says need not necessarily be followed literally but one must use one's senses and try to intrepret > according to needs.In the whole of the world how many people are real Krishna devotees?doyou think that you can make the whole world one of Krishna Conscious stage? I hv to ask you this questions not out of showing that I am greater than you in knowledge or to show some sort of ego complex which Idon't > possess but your wordings are such which I can't digest.Hence this staright > questions not to wound you but harping on one subject only we can't develop bhakthy but making ourselves adjusting to the thoughts of others only thru > pursuasion one must try to make others realise the facts that contain in our > statements.If you would hv covered all the aspects of all deities and all types of > devotees of other deities then I would hv certainly appreciated you.But instead of that you chose the path of jnanis and making that others think devotion as absurdity are not in any way ethical and it shows some type of assertation that people who worship other deities and who got knowlede by worshipping their own deities other than Krishna are not devotees or bhakthas and attacking jnanis are not the proper way.Anyway you or I are not jnanis and then how can we make comment on them and no janni says thatyou hv to accept his versions only including Krishna who also distinguishes bhakthas into four categories.> > Your following of Krishna and your concern for Him is laudable but the way you hv presented is not palatable at least to me.There are so many saints who worship eversomany deities for years and when their karmic effects are over they > get themselves merged in the Oneness and there is no rebirth for them and they need not come back again to hv more experiences as even Sri Krishna has said in Gita.Such souls are rarely found and they never exhibit themselves.So there is no more devotion is required for them as they hv become one with the Creator.> Till we reach that time some following or devotion of somebody is a must and I used to say when one chooses one deity one shuld cling on to that.Then how bhakthy comes?Not from birth but when the child grows and the parents take the child to temples and say good things and the same shuld get imbibed in the mind of the child and then it will grow automatically over the years.Now a days how many children are taught bhakthy by their parents?Teaching Gita and other things can takeplace when the child grows up sufficiently advanced and you can't expect a child of even 10 to grasp what Krishna said in Gita.All those things> can come only at a later part of time as Dr.Saroja Ramanujam has pointed in> another mail.Till then the child will be more interested in his or her studies andto> come out successfully in life and at that time if you go on teaching Gita and other things they will even lose what little interest they hv got.Even during Krishnas' time or subsequent times how many people knew Gita nobody knows.Actually I came to get some interest in Gita only after hearing a 'Gita Yagna' which the late Swami Chinmayanada used to conduct and I was attracted by his language,erudition,the wayhe used to pronounce the subject in a very lucid manner.So expecting too much and quoting Gita and Bhagavatam may be ok for a group but in real life I wonder how far the same will attract persons.Of course in all discourses people may throng as their is no dearth for people in thiscountry > anywhere but afterwards what happen to them and whether they follow the teachings or just ignore and appreciate only the scholorlypresentation of the > lecturer we don't know.> Dear Krishna,if any of my sentences hv the effect of wounding your feelings kindly bear with me as it is not my intention to offend you in any manner.You wrote something and just I countered that is all.Since this will make other members also to take part in a new twist to the points I hv put some questions which sometimes you may find the same difficult to answer.So with all the articles,as putting questions is easy but to give a convincing reply is difficult.> Again I beg your excuses if you feel in anyway offended by my writings as I hv always treated you as my good friend.Also I say I am not against Bhagavatam,> Gita and other scriptures but much dependence on the sayings won't help in the present day world as what Krishna preached was under different circumstances though they may be applicable in some cases and not in all respects.> > Hare Krishna,> > agraman.> > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers> Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 So that is it Krishnadaya.I really appreciate your mail and your prayers.Now only thing you hv to do is to confine yourself to your Sri Krishna bhakthy and try to become like a devotee of the various devotees you hv mentioned and try to concentrate the various scriptures quoted by you instead of entering into unsavoury controversies which will surely go against your ardent devotion of Sri Krishna.Why you try to create such a situation unnecessarily and concentrate on your Ishta Devata and serve to the best of your ability and enjoy the bliss you get.Never bother abt what others are following and never criticise the great acharyas of all sects who are definitely superior to you and me and you follow your path which you deem fit.All will follow their own ways and it is not correct to impose your views on others.I may follow a diferent path and so too many others.You need not worry abt such things and you try to be an ardent devotee of your deity without worrying abt what others are doing as you can't change the world.I wish you Good Luck in your endeavours as a friend. Let us close this matter and never raise such unpalatable disputed subjects. .I don't claim myself to be a devotee or even a bhaktha and my knowledge on this subject is only limited and hence even if I write something which you may think as a sort of criticism you need not take the same seriously and just ignore.God Bless. agraman.krishnadaya <krishnadaya wrote: Bhagavane Sri Krishna , My deep adoration of You increases still further, when I see You deluding Your critics and intervening through Your chosen mediums . Bhagavane, As You know, I worship You as my Ishta-Daivam ; and Gita, Bhagavatham and Narayaneeyam as Your literary incarnations . With great joy , I often quote part(s) of the mentioned books of Yourself , but, only after dutifully understanding it's relevance. Thanks to Your grace in the form of my education and Krishna- Bhakti , I have no difficulty whatsoever, in understanding and following Your eternal instructions . As You are aware , traditionally my family members are Siva-Bhaktas , due to the specific `kalari' tradition . And the family-Deity is `Rudra Sivan' in that kalari-model temple for which , the `Thantram' is being performed by Tazhaman Thanthris (Sabarimala Tanthris) . Recently I happened to visit my family temple . While I was offering worship to the Deity , Bhagavata parayanam ceremony started there and the sweet reciting of Your Bhagavatham filled my eyes with tears of joy thinking about the mercy You are showering on me in Your Deity-form as `Rudra Sivan' . Bhagavane , as a humble pada-sevak of You , I have no hatred towards any one since I know that You dwell in the hears of every living entity . And I deeply respect all Devathas ,Your specific manifestations for various purposes . Krishna , the life stories of Your famous Bhaktas like Melpathur, Poonthanam, Vilwamnagalam Swamiyar, Kurooramma , Manavedan and Kunjhikavu greatly motivate me . These great Bhaktas were always interested only in serving Your lotus feet, by making different types of offerings . Please provide the same type of faith and mental equilibrium to all Your faithfull devotees of this age . Your Padasevak , Krishnadaya. -------------------------------- guruvayur , GANAPATHY RAMAN <agraman62 wrote:>> So according to Krishnadaya only people who are Vaishnavites are expected to visit and worship Sri Guruvayurappan and when the main Deity plays prominent role sub deities don't hv much importance.This seems to be a strange theory that only Vaishnavites shuld visit Krishna temples and Saivites visit Siva temples and thereby distinquishing even the very nature of God and splitting Him into two parts as Vaishnava God and Saiva God.Quite strange.There is no necesiity for any argument as this requires only commonsense that all people who visit Krishna temple at Guruvayur are not Vaishnavites as Krishnadaya may imagine.They also worshiip Siva ,Sastha and other deities of Saivites.Why shuld God be baulkanised as Vaishnava God and Saiva God?In Siva temples too we hv vaishnava deities and all worship that and no disputes.> > Krishnadaya must also understand that Narayaneeyam might hv been made by Melpathur but the glory of the same was spread allover India and abroad by the late Anantharama Deekshidar who was a doyen of discourses and when he was afflicted by illness he went to GVR and worshipped Sri Krishna thru Narayaneeyam and in course got his disease cured and from then onwards wherever he went for doing discourses he made it a point to discourse Narayaneeyam and by that only many people came to know even the existence of such a hymn.Perhaps you may not be aware this fact.That is why even his photo is adorned along with bhatthathiri in GVR temple.He was not a vaishnava but an ardent Saiva.So don't try to make your conclusion that Sri > Guruvayurappan belongs to only people who are Vaishanavites and all who visit the temple are vaishnavas.That has stemmed from your imagination.I am not arguing with you as it is a waste I know as you hv a definite mind set up which can't accept other things.This I mentioned even in my reply earlier.> > Just by writing a comment an ardent devotee of Krishna won't change or get confused as you imagine and if the devotee does the same then he or she is not a devotee of Sri Krishna.Arguments wll always be there and not necessarily be taken as a matter of conversion from one sect to another sect.Just becoz the vaishnava acharyas reject advaita followers of Sankara and others can that argument be accepted and do you think it has any sanctity?This seems to be some conversion theory never believe advaita and only what vaishnava acharyas said believe those things.Such things shuld not hv been written as the same will only confuse the real bhakthas of Sri Krishna.who will get the impression of worshipping saivite Gods like Siva and others are against religious spirit.You believe in whatever things as I hv already said in my earlier reply that all depends on individuals perceptions and convictions.But ridiculing Sankara undoubtedly the Greatest of all and praising only the> vaishnava acharyas is not the proper way of presenting the matter and shows your immaturity only.You must hv the > broad vision to accept all things enunciated by all the acharyas and not confining yourself in some shelf.> > Anyways there is no meaning to say to you who can't hv the mind to accept the views of others also and clinging to one particular thing and rejecting all the other Great people who brought glory to India, is simply futile.I hv never criticised Gita,Bhagavatham and you imagine something as if I am trying to wean away the devotees of Krishna to some other sect.I am not for any such move but definitely your writings show you are on that path which is simply ridiculous and pitiable.For your info I am not for Vaishnava sect or Saiva sect as I love both sects > and worship the Gods of both sects and also a good follower of Sri Guruvayurappan and I may hv my own Ishta Devata and that is personal.> > Again I say I wrote the reply not to offend you neither this one or the previous one but only to make you understand that you shuld hv more broad views on > spiritual matters and not live like a frog in a well.God Bless dear friend Krishnadaya. and don't get agitated by this reply as I hv told only the truth and as an answer to your reply.Let us stop with this as you hv certain mind set which does not allow to make your thinking broader and you must accept the fact that God is One whether Vaishnava God or Saiva God. krishnadaya wrote> > Krishna, Guruvayoorappa,> > It is not advisable to argue when someone questions the > fundamental supreme authority of Sri Krishna as well as His literary > incarnations and restricts the scope of discussion to non-vaishnava > saints . As such, this write up is just to remove the confusion in > the minds of Krishna-bhaktas who were disturbed by the mentioned > distortion . > > When a Vaishnava goes to Guruvayoor temple , he/she worships the > presiding Deity Guruvayoorappan as well as the sub-deities therein > namely Siva, Ganesha , Bhagavathy and Ayyappan . As such the > question of spiritual intolerance doesn't arise . > > Ishta-devatha is a term meaning "the God one prays most." Sri > Krishna is the `Ishta-devatha of Vaishnavas for whom focused Bhakti-> Yoga to Him is like life-air . > > Vaishnava authorites like Ramanuja , Madhava , Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, > Melpathur Naryana Bhattathiri ,and Prabhupada have asked their > followers to remain steadfast in their Bhakri-yoga by fully complying > with Bhagavan's instructions . In fact , these Acharyas strongly > rejected the Maya-vadi philosophy of the Advaitists . Accordingly, > the Vaishnavas are relying on specific scriptures like Bhagavatham , > Gita and Narayaneeyam which have the stamp of approval by Bhagavan > Krishna Himself . And Bhagavan provides His Devotees with > opportunities and wisdom to understand the concepts of the mentioned > scriptures . A designer has to comply with the specified codes and > standards in order to produce an acceptable product . Same way , a > Vaishnava complies with the eternal instructions of Sri Krishna > without fail . There is no difference between Sri Krishna , His His > attributes and His instructions . > > Bhagavad Gita is relevant for all ages . Even in this Kali-yuga , > Gita guides it's followers in the right path. > > A humble servant of Guruvayoorappan . > > -------------------------> guruvayur , GANAPATHY RAMAN agraman62@ > wrote:> >> > This is only my thoughts and in no way be treated as a rebuttal of > Krishnadayas postings as I hv already made known Krishnadaya is a > devotee of Krishna and could not tolerate anything is said other than > Krishna.But the fact is that Krishna is only one of the eversomany > Gods in our Hindu mythology.Though His avatar was different from > others and He preached Gita it becomes easier to quote from what He > said.My point is then what abt other Gods and their followers who > also get the same benefits which Krishna promised.Krishna told only > arjuna in a battlefield His teachings.Following the same in all > circumstances won't lead us > > in the present age as many of them are not practicable.He taught > arjuna only to surrender to Him and fight the war instead of running > out of the battle field and do the duty of a Kshatriya.So just > banking only on Gita alone for all the ills of the society won't help > much,I think.The teachings happened abt 4 or 5000 years ago in a > different yuga and applying all the tenets in the present age will > lead only to confusion.This does not mean I challenge Krsihnadaya but > her wordings used seem to be not correct,I feel.> > > > Krishnadaya uses that jnanis is also devotees and there arise > duality and such things.She harps on devotion and diluting the same > amounts to absurdity.May be she is correct.But how devotion comes?Is > it by seeing a Deity or by reading some texts or Gita? She > elaborately quoted from Bhagavatam.Just becoz this Group is dedicated > Sri Guruvayoorappan is it a must that one shuld quote only > > from Gita,Bhagavatam and Narayaneeyam.Is there any compulsion.Or > the scriptures mean only these three.Then what abt Nayanmars who are > 64 in number who worshipped Siva and made lot of hymns in praise of > Him.Are they not followers or devotees?Sankara ,an acknowledged > advaitin wrote Saundarya > > Lahiri,a beautiful celestial song on Devi shuld be ignored?He was > no doubt a> > Realised soul and he never wrote that hymn for himself as there > was no necessity for him as when one merged in the God there is no > dualism but all can't become like him and hence he coined so many > hymns on Devi ,Ananda Lahiri on Siva,Bhaja Govindam on > Krishna,Subrahmanya bhujangam on Subrahmanya and there was no > necesiity for him to do all those things when he knew he was only > writing the same on himself being one with God but for the > > other mortals like Krishnadaya and me to develop the bhakthy > marga so that people like us can recite the same and try to evolve > ourselves in the ladder of bhakthy.> > So too Ramakrishna Paramahansa worshipped Kali and got her vision > and thru Her Grace got all the knowledge though he did not study much > abt the scriptures and other things but becoz of the Grace he could > quote so many teachings.The same thing is with sage Ramana who took a > different path by > > having his own theory to find out whatwas he and thru 'atma > vichara' he dived within himself and found that he was also a speck > of the Creator.All Realised souls or jnanis though initially they hv > to be bhakthas of some deitiy and thru severe austerities and > spiritual discipline were able to merge in the Cosmic Power and there > was no necessity for them to become a devotee again as they hv > crossed that stage and when they had realised that all are ONE then > who shuld be a devotee for whom?As we were having the same problem > earlier I mentioned that the river is a river by name only so long > the same reaches the ocean and when the same merges with the ocean > then the identity of the river is lost and do you want to say that > the ocean is a devotee of the river or vice versa when the river has > already become one with the ocean?> > As I don't hv much knowledge abt sastras I can't comment on > that.But how many sastras you know and do you know the meaning of > what they import to the understanding of common people like me.We > always hv readymade answer that such and such thing is said in > sastras,Krishna has said such things in Gita,> > Bhagavatham says such and such things and so we shuld follow.Then > are we not becoming something like a robot without really > understanding and try to improve our own knowledge?For anything and > everything we depend on some texts mean we just surrender our God > given intelligence and wisdom to those quotes.Don' you think so?Why > man is given intelligence and wisdom?To use it > > in a way that he or she shuld be able to study and try to > understand both the aspects positive and negative and the > applicability of the same in the times we live in and not moving back > to several thousand years .We shuld try to study those things and > also use our own versions and realise the reality according to > change of times.What Gita says or Bhagavatham says need not > necessarily be followed literally but one must use one's senses and > try to intrepret > > according to needs.In the whole of the world how many people are > real Krishna devotees?doyou think that you can make the whole world > one of Krishna Conscious stage? I hv to ask you this questions not > out of showing that I am greater than you in knowledge or to show > some sort of ego complex which Idon't > > possess but your wordings are such which I can't digest.Hence > this staright > > questions not to wound you but harping on one subject only we > can't develop bhakthy but making ourselves adjusting to the thoughts > of others only thru > > pursuasion one must try to make others realise the facts that > contain in our > > statements.If you would hv covered all the aspects of all deities > and all types of > > devotees of other deities then I would hv certainly appreciated > you.But instead of that you chose the path of jnanis and making that > others think devotion as absurdity are not in any way ethical and it > shows some type of assertation that people who worship other deities > and who got knowlede by worshipping their own deities other than > Krishna are not devotees or bhakthas and attacking jnanis are not the > proper way.Anyway you or I are not jnanis and then how can we make > comment on them and no janni says thatyou hv to accept his versions > only including Krishna who also distinguishes bhakthas into four > categories.> > > > Your following of Krishna and your concern for Him is laudable > but the way you hv presented is not palatable at least to me.There > are so many saints who worship eversomany deities for years and when > their karmic effects are over they > > get themselves merged in the Oneness and there is no rebirth for > them and they need not come back again to hv more experiences as even > Sri Krishna has said in Gita.Such souls are rarely found and they > never exhibit themselves.So there is no more devotion is required for > them as they hv become one with the Creator.> > Till we reach that time some following or devotion of somebody is > a must and I used to say when one chooses one deity one shuld cling > on to that.Then how bhakthy comes?Not from birth but when the child > grows and the parents take the child to temples and say good things > and the same shuld get imbibed in the mind of the child and then it > will grow automatically over the years.Now a days how many children > are taught bhakthy by their parents?Teaching Gita and other things > can takeplace when the child grows up sufficiently advanced and you > can't expect a child of even 10 to grasp what Krishna said in > Gita.All those things> > can come only at a later part of time as Dr.Saroja Ramanujam has > pointed in> > another mail.Till then the child will be more interested in his > or her studies andto> > come out successfully in life and at that time if you go on > teaching Gita and other things they will even lose what little > interest they hv got.Even during Krishnas' time or subsequent times > how many people knew Gita nobody knows.Actually I came to get some > interest in Gita only after hearing a 'Gita Yagna' which the late > Swami Chinmayanada used to conduct and I was attracted by his > language,erudition,the wayhe used to pronounce the subject in a very > lucid manner.So expecting too much and quoting Gita and Bhagavatam > may be ok for a group but in real life I wonder how far the same will > attract persons.Of course in all discourses people may throng as > their is no dearth for people in thiscountry > > anywhere but afterwards what happen to them and whether they > follow the teachings or just ignore and appreciate only the > scholorlypresentation of the > > lecturer we don't know.> > Dear Krishna,if any of my sentences hv the effect of wounding > your feelings kindly bear with me as it is not my intention to offend > you in any manner.You wrote something and just I countered that is > all.Since this will make other members also to take part in a new > twist to the points I hv put some questions which sometimes you may > find the same difficult to answer.So with all the articles,as > putting questions is easy but to give a convincing reply is difficult.> > Again I beg your excuses if you feel in anyway offended by my > writings as I hv always treated you as my good friend.Also I say I > am not against Bhagavatam,> > Gita and other scriptures but much dependence on the sayings > won't help in the present day world as what Krishna preached was > under different circumstances though they may be applicable in some > cases and not in all respects.> > > > Hare Krishna,> > > > agraman.> > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers> >> > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers> Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Dear all, This is an interesting but confusing topic for many of us. Two years ago I was confused with the topic and I was compelled to do some research and talk with many Hindu scholars and teachers including a few Swamiji's from Kerala regarding the subject. It is not really a confusing subject after I learnt the facts. First of all, everyone is right! Yes, from your own view points - because there is no common view point. However, if I can speak of majority of Hindu's in Kerala, I agree with Keerthi Kumar. Here is my research that gives you a wider view to decide for yourself- I never celebrated Deepavali or Holi in Kerala, it was Onam, Vishu and Thiruvathira for me. I was never been asked if I were a Vaishnavite or Saivaite, before I left Kerala. I was also never been asked for my GOTHRA before I left Kerala. However, once I stepped outside Kerala, things were different. New world, new questions and a slightly different Hinduism than I knew it. With new festivals and new questions came new confusions! I learnt about sparring factions of Hindu sects, heard of different versions and stories about the same festival, and started wondering what is this 'Gothra' thing that they ask in temples when you need to do a pooja (it was name and nakshatra in Kerala)! I even realized that there are small pockets of such division exists right inside in Kerala, like the Gowda Sarawat Brahmins who are Vaishnavites! But while growing up in Kerala, I was busy cracking math, science and history and did not have much time for religious research. And I was oblivious to such deep divisions of Hinduism. Most of the answers came with some learning; Hinduism consists of several schools of thought and Vaishnavism is ONE OF THE principal divisions. Saivism and Shaktism are others. But it does not stop there , majority of us are influenced by Advaita philosophy, pray to an array of deities, considering all of them as manifestations of the supreme, Brahman. Hence, majority of us do not belong to any of the above divisions. Vaishnavism Vaishnavism adherents worship Vishnu or one of his avatars as the supreme God and are principally monotheistic in nature. The Hare Krishna movement or ISKCON is a modern example of a Vaishnavite organisation. Divisions of Vaishnava tradition Some of you will be surprised to know that there are sub-divisions in Vaishnava tradition itself. Major sub-divisions are, Vishishtaadvaita ("qualified nondualism"), espoused by Ramanuja; i.e., Srivaishnavism. Dvaita ("dualism"), espoused by Madhvacharya Achintya Bheda-Abheda, espoused by Sri Chaitanya adhered by Gaudiya Vaishnavism. ISKCON ("Hare Krishnas") is the most well known branch of this school. Shuddhaadvaita, espoused by Vallabhacharya Dvaitaadvaita, espoused by Nimbarka Vaishnava Belief Vaishnavas believe that Vishnu-Narayana is the one supreme God (Parabrahman) and all other living entities (including devas such as Shiva and Durga) are subservient to Him. While other schools like Advaitism encourage people to interpret the Vedas philosophically and metaphorically but not too literally, Vaishnavism stresses the literal meaning as primary and indirect meaning as secondary. For example, according to Vaishnava theology, atman is not Brahman and Moksha doesn't mean "union with God" but "eternal life in heaven". Good thing is that, with the entry of other religions into the Indian subcontinent, we became more united and the discriminations of Vaishnavism and Saivism turned more into intellectual arguments rather than mutually exclusive philosophies fighting each other. CONCLUSION So, in short, unless you belong to a small percentage distinct Vaishnava followers in Kerala like Gowda Saraswat Brahmins or you are initiated by a Guru to Vaishnavism, you do not have to think much about this confusing topic. Also if Krishnadaya or anyone else follow Vaishnavism, they are absolutely right to do so and tell you that they see Krishna as the only Supreme god head. Guruvayoor Temple As far I know Guruvayoor temple is not distinctly defined as a Vaishnava tradition temple anywhere. Guruvayoor was the temple of Samoothiris, and there is no such mention as Samoothiri's were being Vaishnavites or Shaivites. Also, Guruvayoor pooja routines were laid down by Adi Sankaracharya and he is considered as a re-incarnation of Siva. It is important to note that Sankaracharya was not a Saivite or Vaishnavite, but written bhajans like Bhaja Govindam and Shivnandalahari. Reasons for our uniqueness Geographically, Kerala is isolated from the rest of India and because of this fact, our culture is quite unique, and so is our Hinduism. Hence, I also do not agree when someone from outside Kerala tells me that we are not real Hindu's as we don't celebrate Deepavali or Holi! Regarding Gothra, well.. thats for another day! Please correct me of any errors, dear knowledgeable elders. Om Namo Narayanya: Sunil.guruvayur , KEERTHI KUMAR V MENON <keerthibai wrote:>> > Ohm Namo Bhagavathe Vasudevaya; Ohm Namo Narrayanaya> > Dear Krishnadaya and others,> > In kerala there is no difference between Vishnavates> or Saivates. Here all peoples worships in Siva and> vaishnava temples. Nobody is saying is saying we> worship only in vaishnava temple or in siva temple. > > Read Ramayana, you can see Rama worships siva in so> many places. I believe you must know about Ramaswaram> temple. > > The split between devotes of siva and vishnau is> created by ISKON now. The ISKON activates separates> devotees as Siva and Vaishnava.> > Why we have to argue ? We can call Gurauvayoorappan > > Ohm Namo Narrayanaya; Ohm Namo Bhagavathe vasudevaya> > Keerthi Kumar> > --- "K.V Gopalakrishna" gopalakrishna.kv wrote:> > > > > Dear Sri. Ganapathy Raman, Krishnadaya and others.> > Radhe Krishna.> > There seems to be a small wrong understanding about> the term"Vaishnava.". The term "Vaishnava" is> referred to also in many placesin Bhagavatam. It> means "the one who worships Vishnu". It is wrongto> assume that a socalled "Vaishnava" can only worship> Vishnu. VishnuHimself is said to be worshipping Lord> Siva in many places. So it isthe understanding of the> term "Vaishnava" makes all the difference.> > Kindly pardon me for the interference.> In humble devotion,> KVG.> > > > GANAPATHY RAMAN wrote: So according to Krishnadaya> only people who are Vaishnavites areexpected to visit > and worship Sri Guruvayurappan and when the mainDeity> plays prominent role sub deities don't hv much> importance.Thisseems to be a strange theory that only> Vaishnavites shuld visit Krishnatemples and Saivites> visit Siva temples and thereby distinquishing eventhe> very nature of God and splitting Him into two parts as> VaishnavaGod and Saiva God.Quite strange.There is no> necesiity for any argumentas this requires only> commonsense that all people who visit Krishnatemple at> Guruvayur are not Vaishnavites as Krishnadaya> mayimagine.They also worshiip Siva ,Sastha and other> deities ofSaivites.Why shuld God be baulkanised as> Vaishnava God and Saiva God?InSiva temples too we hv> vaishnava deities and all worship that and nodisputes.> > Krishnadaya must also understand that Narayaneeyam> might hv beenmade by Melpathur but the glory of the> same was spread allover Indiaand abroad by the late> Anantharama Deekshidar who was a doyen ofdiscourses> and when he was afflicted by illness he went to GVR> andworshipped Sri Krishna thru Narayaneeyam and in> course got his diseasecured and from then onwards> wherever he went for doing discourses hemade it a> point to discourse Narayaneeyam and by that only many> peoplecame to know even the existence of such a> hymn.Perhaps you may not beaware this fact.That is why> even his photo is adorned along withbhatthathiri in> GVR temple.He was not a vaishnava but an> ardentSaiva.So don't try to make your conclusion that> Sri > Guruvayurappan belongs to only people who are> Vaishanavites andall who visit the temple are> vaishnavas.That has stemmed from yourimagination.I am> not arguing with you as it is a waste I know asyou hv> a definite mind set up which can't accept other> things.This Imentioned even in my reply earlier.> > Just by writing a comment an ardent devotee of> Krishna won'tchange or get confused as you imagine and> if the devotee does the samethen he or she is not a> devotee of Sri Krishna.Arguments wll always bethere> and not necessarily be taken as a matter of conversion> from onesect to another sect.Just becoz the vaishnava> acharyas reject advaitafollowers of Sankara and others> can that argument be accepted and doyou think it has> any sanctity?This seems to be some conversion> theorynever believe advaita and only what vaishnava> acharyas said believethose things.Such things shuld> not hv been written as the same willonly confuse the> real bhakthas of Sri Krishna.who will get> theimpression of worshipping saivite Gods like Siva> and others are againstreligious spirit.You believe in> whatever things as I hv already said inmy earlier> reply that all depends on individuals perceptions> andconvictions.But ridiculing Sankara undoubtedly the> Greatest of alland praising only the vaishnava> acharyas is not the proper way ofpresenting the matter> and shows your immaturity only.You must hv the > broad vision to accept all things enunciated by all> the acharyasand not confining yourself in some shelf.> > Anyways there is no meaning to say to you who can't> hv the mindto accept the views of others also and> clinging to one particularthing and rejecting all the> other Great people who brought glory toIndia, is> simply futile.I hv never criticised Gita,Bhagavatham> and youimagine something as if I am trying to wean> away the devotees ofKrishna to some other sect.I am> not for any such move but definitelyyour writings show> you are on that path which is simply ridiculous> andpitiable.For your info I am not for Vaishnava sect> or Saiva sect as Ilove both sects > and worship the Gods of both sects and also a good> follower ofSri Guruvayurappan and I may hv my own> Ishta Devata and that ispersonal.> > Again I say I wrote the reply not to offend you> neither this oneor the previous one but only to make> you understand that you shuld hvmore broad views on > spiritual matters and not live like a frog in a> well.God Blessdear friend Krishnadaya. and don't get> agitated by this reply as I hvtold only the truth and> as an answer to your reply.Let us stop withthis as you> hv certain mind set which does not allow to make> yourthinking broader and you must accept the fact that> God is One whetherVaishnava God or Saiva God.> krishnadayawrote> > Krishna, Guruvayoorappa,> > It is not advisable to argue when someone questions> the > fundamental supreme authority of Sri Krishna as well> as His literary > incarnations and restricts the scope of discussion to> non-vaishnava > saints . As such, this write up is just to remove the> confusion in > the minds of Krishna-bhaktas who were disturbed by the> mentioned > distortion . > > When a Vaishnava goes to Guruvayoor temple , he/she> worships the > presiding Deity Guruvayoorappan as well as the> sub-deities therein > namely Siva, Ganesha , Bhagavathy and Ayyappan . As> such the > question of spiritual intolerance doesn't arise . > > Ishta-devatha is a term meaning "the God one prays> most." Sri > Krishna is the `Ishta-devatha of Vaishnavas for whom> focused Bhakti-> Yoga to Him is like life-air . > > Vaishnava authorites like Ramanuja , Madhava ,> Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, > Melpathur Naryana Bhattathiri ,and Prabhupada have> asked their > followers to remain steadfast in their Bhakri-yoga by> fully complying > with Bhagavan's instructions . In fact , these> Acharyas strongly > rejected the Maya-vadi philosophy of the Advaitists .> Accordingly, > the Vaishnavas are relying on specific scriptures like> Bhagavatham , > Gita and Narayaneeyam which have the stamp of approval> by Bhagavan > Krishna Himself . And Bhagavan provides His Devotees> with > opportunities and wisdom to understand the concepts of> the mentioned > scriptures . A designer has to comply with the> specified codes and > standards in order to produce an acceptable product .> Same way , a > Vaishnava complies with the eternal instructions of> Sri Krishna > without fail . There is no difference between Sri> Krishna , His His > attributes and His instructions . > > Bhagavad Gita is relevant for all ages . Even in this> Kali-yuga , > Gita guides it's followers in the right path. > > A humble servant of Guruvayoorappan . > > -------------------------> guruvayur ,GANAPATHY RAMAN> agraman62@ > wrote:> >> > This is only my thoughts and in no way be treated as> a rebuttal of > Krishnadayas postings as I hv already made known> Krishnadaya is a > devotee of Krishna and could not tolerate anything is> said other than > Krishna.But the fact is that Krishna is only one of> the eversomany > Gods in our Hindu mythology.Though His avatar was> different from > others and He preached Gita it becomes easier to quote> from what He > said.My point is then what abt other Gods and their> followers who > also get the same benefits which Krishna> promised.Krishna told only > arjuna in a battlefield His teachings.Following the> same in all > circumstances won't lead us > > in the present age as many of them are not> practicable.Hetaught > arjuna only to surrender to Him and fight the war> instead of running > out of the battle field and do the duty of a> Kshatriya.So just > banking only on Gita alone for all the ills of the> society won't help > much,I think.The teachings happened abt 4 or 5000> years ago in a > different yuga and applying all the tenets in the> present age will > lead only to confusion.This does not mean I challenge> Krsihnadaya but > her wordings used seem to be not correct,I feel.> > > > Krishnadaya uses that jnanis is also devotees and> there arise > duality and such things.She harps on devotion and> diluting the same > amounts to absurdity.May be she is correct.But how> devotion comes?Is > it by seeing a Deity or by reading some texts or Gita?> She > elaborately quoted from Bhagavatam.Just becoz this> Group is dedicated > Sri Guruvayoorappan is it a must that one shuld quote> only > > from Gita,Bhagavatam and Narayaneeyam.Is there> anycompulsion.Or > the scriptures mean only these three.Then what abt> Nayanmars who are > 64 in number who worshipped Siva and made lot of hymns> in praise of > Him.Are they not followers or devotees?Sankara ,an> acknowledged > advaitin wrote Saundarya > > Lahiri,a beautiful celestial song on Devi shuld be> ignored?He was > no doubt a> > Realised soul and he never wrote that hymn for> himself as there > was no necessity for him as when one merged in the God> there is no > dualism but all can't become like him and hence he> coined so many > hymns on Devi ,Ananda Lahiri on Siva,Bhaja Govindam on> > Krishna,Subrahmanya bhujangam on Subrahmanya and there> was no > necesiity for him to do all those things when he knew> he was only > writing the same on himself being one with God but for> the > > other mortals like Krishnadaya and me to develop the> bhakthy > marga so that people like us can recite the same and> try to evolve > ourselves in the ladder of bhakthy.> > So too Ramakrishna Paramahansa worshipped Kali and> got her vision > and thru Her Grace got all the knowledge though he did> not study much > abt the scriptures and other things but becoz of the> Grace he could > quote so many teachings.The same thing is with sage> Ramana who took a > different path by > > having his own theory to find out whatwas he and> thru 'atma > vichara' he dived within himself and found that he was> also a speck > of the Creator.All Realised souls or jnanis though> initially they hv > to be bhakthas of some deitiy and thru severe> austerities and > spiritual discipline were able to merge in the Cosmic> Power and there > was no necessity for them to become a devotee again as> they hv > crossed that stage and when they had realised that all> are ONE then > who shuld be a devotee for whom?As we were having the> same problem > earlier I mentioned that the river is a river by name> only so long > the same reaches the ocean and when the same merges> with the ocean > then the identity of the river is lost and do you want> to say that > the ocean is a devotee of the river or vice versa when> the river has > already become one with the ocean?> > As I don't hv much knowledge abt sastras I can't> comment on > that.But how many sastras you know and do you know the> meaning of > what they import to the understanding of common people> like me.We > always hv readymade answer that such and such thing is> said in > sastras,Krishna has said such things in Gita,> > Bhagavatham says such and such things and so we> shuld follow.Then > are we not becoming something like a robot without> really > understanding and try to improve our own knowledge?For> anything and > everything we depend on some texts mean we just> surrender our God > given intelligence and wisdom to those quotes.Don' you> think so?Why > man is given intelligence and wisdom?To use it > > in a way that he or she shuld be able to study and> try to > understand both the aspects positive and negative and> the > applicability of the same in the times we live in and> not moving back > to several thousand years .We shuld try to study those> things and > also use our own versions and realise the reality> according to > change of times.What Gita says or Bhagavatham says> need not > necessarily be followed literally but one must use> one's senses and > try to intrepret > > according to needs.In the whole of the world how> many people are > real Krishna devotees?doyou think that you can make> the whole world > one of Krishna Conscious stage? I hv to ask you this> questions not > out of showing that I am greater than you in knowledge> or to show > some sort of ego complex which Idon't > > possess but your wordings are such which I can't> digest.Hence > this staright > > questions not to wound you but harping on one> subject only we > can't develop bhakthy but making ourselves adjusting> to the thoughts > of others only thru > > pursuasion one must try to make others realise the> facts that > contain in our > > statements.If you would hv covered all the aspects> of all deities > and all types of > > devotees of other deities then I would hv certainly> appreciated > you.But instead of that you chose the path of jnanis> and making that > others think devotion as absurdity are not in any way> ethical and it > shows some type of assertation that people who worship> other deities > and who got knowlede by worshipping their own deities> other than > Krishna are not devotees or bhakthas and attacking> jnanis are not the > proper way.Anyway you or I are not jnanis and then how> can we make > comment on them and no janni says thatyou hv to accept> his versions > only including Krishna who also distinguishes bhakthas> into four > categories.> > > > Your following of Krishna and your concern for Him> is laudable > but the way you hv presented is not palatable at least> to me.There > are so many saints who worship eversomany deities for> years and when > their karmic effects are over they > > get themselves merged in the Oneness and there is no> rebirth for > them and they need not come back again to hv more> experiences as even > Sri Krishna has said in Gita.Such souls are rarely> found and they > never exhibit themselves.So there is no more devotion> is required for > them as they hv become one with the Creator.> > Till we reach that time some following or devotion> of somebody is > a must and I used to say when one chooses one deity> one shuld cling > on to that.Then how bhakthy comes?Not from birth but> when the child > grows and the parents take the child to temples and> say good things > and the same shuld get imbibed in the mind of the> child and then it > will grow automatically over the years.Now a days how> many children > are taught bhakthy by their parents?Teaching Gita and> other things > can takeplace when the child grows up sufficiently> advanced and you > can't expect a child of even 10 to grasp what Krishna> said in > Gita.All those things> > can come only at a later part of time as Dr.Saroja> Ramanujam has > pointed in> > another mail.Till then the child will be more> interested in his > or her studies andto> > come out successfully in life and at that time if> you go on > teaching Gita and other things they will even lose> what little > interest they hv got.Even during Krishnas' time or> subsequent times > how many people knew Gita nobody knows.Actually I came> to get some > interest in Gita only after hearing a 'Gita Yagna'> which the late > Swami Chinmayanada used to conduct and I was attracted> by his > language,erudition,the wayhe used to pronounce the> subject in avery > lucid manner.So expecting too much and quoting Gita> and Bhagavatam > may be ok for a group but in real life I wonder how> far the same will > attract persons.Of course in all discourses people may> throng as > their is no dearth for people in thiscountry > > anywhere but afterwards what happen to them and> whether they > follow the teachings or just ignore and appreciate> only the > scholorlypresentation of the > > lecturer we don't know.> > Dear Krishna,if any of my sentences hv the effect of> wounding > your feelings kindly bear with me as it is not my> intention to offend > you in any manner.You wrote something and just I> countered that is > all.Since this will make other members also to take> part in a new > twist to the points I hv put some questions which> sometimes you may > find the same difficult to answer.So with all the> articles,as > putting questions is easy but to give a convincing> reply is difficult.> > Again I beg your excuses if you feel in anyway> offended by my > writings as I hv always treated you as my good> friend.Also I say I > am not against Bhagavatam,> > Gita and other scriptures but much dependence on the> sayings > won't help in the present day world as what Krishna> preached was > under different circumstances though they may be> applicable in some > cases and not in all respects.> > > > Hare Krishna,> > > > agraman.> > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for -> Answers> >> > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for -> Answers > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Dear Sunil and others, Radhe Krishna! A real Bhakta need not worry about Advaita, Dwaita, visishta-advaita, Jainism, Buddhism, etc. All these divisions do not help in any way except dividing us. As we all know, Brahman, God without form, otherwise known as the "Whole Indivisible " is unique and without a second. Then why break our head with all these petty sub-divisions? Show real Bhakti to God, whoever is your favourite God, Your Ishta-deivatam. Dont worry about your Gotram etc. We are all human beings. If some temple priest asks your Gotram and if you dont know your Gotram, tell the name of your Ishta-devatam. Gotram is really the name of the ancient Rishi from whom one has had his origin. It is not necessary that one should remember that name all the time. That is why I said, tell the name of your Ishta-deivatam. All these so-called divisions in faith stated above, are only in the level of the different mutts and the mata-adhipathis who head the mutts. Let us leave it to the mata-adhipathis to sort it out. Mata-adhipathis should work together to unify our religion. I am sorry to say that by following these different faiths, we only divide ourselves. So let us not be carried away by any of these. We hindus worship all Gods. When we worship Vishnu, we are Vaishnavites, devotees of Vishnu, and when we worship Siva, we are Saivites, devotees of Siva. When we worship Muruga, let us call ourselves Muruga-bhaktas. In fact, all these Gods are but manifestations of the Supreme one. As the Supreme One has no form and one cannot focus his mind on a formless God, we have selected as Ishta-devatams, the form of the manifestation whom we like most, and worship him. .. I feel I am quite clear in my thinking, and this is the philosophy I like to adhere to. Regards, Yours, in humble submission, K.V. Gopalakrishna.. Sunil Menon wrote: Dear all, This is an interesting but confusing topic for many of us. Two years ago I was confused with the topic and I was compelled to do some research and talk with many Hindu scholars and teachers including a few Swamiji's from Kerala regarding the subject. It is not really a confusing subject after I learnt the facts. First of all, everyone is right! Yes, from your own view points - because there is no common view point. However, if I can speak of majority of Hindu's in Kerala, I agree with Keerthi Kumar. Here is my research that gives you a wider view to decide for yourself- I never celebrated Deepavali or Holi in Kerala, it was Onam, Vishu and Thiruvathira for me. I was never been asked if I were a Vaishnavite or Saivaite, before I left Kerala. I was also never been asked for my GOTHRA before I left Kerala. However, once I stepped outside Kerala, things were different. New world, new questions and a slightly different Hinduism than I knew it. With new festivals and new questions came new confusions! I learnt about sparring factions of Hindu sects, heard of different versions and stories about the same festival, and started wondering what is this 'Gothra' thing that they ask in temples when you need to do a pooja (it was name and nakshatra in Kerala)! I even realized that there are small pockets of such division exists right inside in Kerala, like the Gowda Sarawat Brahmins who are Vaishnavites! But while growing up in Kerala, I was busy cracking math, science and history and did not have much time for religious research. And I was oblivious to such deep divisions of Hinduism. Most of the answers came with some learning; Hinduism consists of several schools of thought and Vaishnavism is ONE OF THE principal divisions. Saivism and Shaktism are others. But it does not stop there , majority of us are influenced by Advaita philosophy, pray to an array of deities, considering all of them as manifestations of the supreme, Brahman. Hence, majority of us do not belong to any of the above divisions. Vaishnavism Vaishnavism adherents worship Vishnu or one of his avatars as the supreme God and are principally monotheistic in nature. The Hare Krishna movement or ISKCON is a modern example of a Vaishnavite organisation. Divisions of Vaishnava tradition Some of you will be surprised to know that there are sub-divisions in Vaishnava tradition itself. Major sub-divisions are, Vishishtaadvaita ("qualified nondualism"), espoused by Ramanuja; i.e., Srivaishnavism. Dvaita ("dualism"), espoused by Madhvacharya Achintya Bheda-Abheda, espoused by Sri Chaitanya adhered by Gaudiya Vaishnavism. ISKCON ("Hare Krishnas") is the most well known branch of this school. Shuddhaadvaita, espoused by Vallabhacharya Dvaitaadvaita, espoused by Nimbarka Vaishnava Belief Vaishnavas believe that Vishnu-Narayana is the one supreme God (Parabrahman) and all other living entities (including devas such as Shiva and Durga) are subservient to Him. While other schools like Advaitism encourage people to interpret the Vedas philosophically and metaphorically but not too literally, Vaishnavism stresses the literal meaning as primary and indirect meaning as secondary. For example, according to Vaishnava theology, atman is not Brahman and Moksha doesn't mean "union with God" but "eternal life in heaven". Good thing is that, with the entry of other religions into the Indian subcontinent, we became more united and the discriminations of Vaishnavism and Saivism turned more into intellectual arguments rather than mutually exclusive philosophies fighting each other. CONCLUSION So, in short, unless you belong to a small percentage distinct Vaishnava followers in Kerala like Gowda Saraswat Brahmins or you are initiated by a Guru to Vaishnavism, you do not have to think much about this confusing topic. Also if Krishnadaya or anyone else follow Vaishnavism, they are absolutely right to do so and tell you that they see Krishna as the only Supreme god head. Guruvayoor Temple As far I know Guruvayoor temple is not distinctly defined as a Vaishnava tradition temple anywhere. Guruvayoor was the temple of Samoothiris, and there is no such mention as Samoothiri's were being Vaishnavites or Shaivites. Also, Guruvayoor pooja routines were laid down by Adi Sankaracharya and he is considered as a re-incarnation of Siva. It is important to note that Sankaracharya was not a Saivite or Vaishnavite, but written bhajans like Bhaja Govindam and Shivnandalahari. Reasons for our uniqueness Geographically, Kerala is isolated from the rest of India and because of this fact, our culture is quite unique, and so is our Hinduism. Hence, I also do not agree when someone from outside Kerala tells me that we are not real Hindu's as we don't celebrate Deepavali or Holi! Regarding Gothra, well.. thats for another day! Please correct me of any errors, dear knowledgeable elders. Om Namo Narayanya: Sunil. guruvayur , KEERTHI KUMAR V MENON <keerthibai wrote: > > > Ohm Namo Bhagavathe Vasudevaya; Ohm Namo Narrayanaya > > Dear Krishnadaya and others, > > In kerala there is no difference between Vishnavates > or Saivates. Here all peoples worships in Siva and > vaishnava temples. Nobody is saying is saying we > worship only in vaishnava temple or in siva temple. > > Read Ramayana, you can see Rama worships siva in so > many places. I believe you must know about Ramaswaram > temple. > > The split between devotes of siva and vishnau is > created by ISKON now. The ISKON activates separates > devotees as Siva and Vaishnava. > > Why we have to argue ? We can call Gurauvayoorappan > > Ohm Namo Narrayanaya; Ohm Namo Bhagavathe vasudevaya > > Keerthi Kumar > > --- "K.V Gopalakrishna" gopalakrishna.kv > wrote: > > > > > Dear Sri. Ganapathy Raman, Krishnadaya and others. > > Radhe Krishna. > > There seems to be a small wrong understanding about > the term"Vaishnava.". The term "Vaishnava" is > referred to also in many placesin Bhagavatam. It > means "the one who worships Vishnu". It is wrongto > assume that a socalled "Vaishnava" can only worship > Vishnu. VishnuHimself is said to be worshipping Lord > Siva in many places. So it isthe understanding of the > term "Vaishnava" makes all the difference. > > Kindly pardon me for the interference. > In humble devotion, > KVG. > > > > GANAPATHY RAMAN wrote: So according to Krishnadaya > only people who are Vaishnavites areexpected to visit > and worship Sri Guruvayurappan and when the mainDeity > plays prominent role sub deities don't hv much > importance.Thisseems to be a strange theory that only > Vaishnavites shuld visit Krishnatemples and Saivites > visit Siva temples and thereby distinquishing eventhe > very nature of God and splitting Him into two parts as > VaishnavaGod and Saiva God.Quite strange.There is no > necesiity for any argumentas this requires only > commonsense that all people who visit Krishnatemple at > Guruvayur are not Vaishnavites as Krishnadaya > mayimagine.They also worshiip Siva ,Sastha and other > deities ofSaivites.Why shuld God be baulkanised as > Vaishnava God and Saiva God?InSiva temples too we hv > vaishnava deities and all worship that and nodisputes. > > Krishnadaya must also understand that Narayaneeyam > might hv beenmade by Melpathur but the glory of the > same was spread allover Indiaand abroad by the late > Anantharama Deekshidar who was a doyen ofdiscourses > and when he was afflicted by illness he went to GVR > andworshipped Sri Krishna thru Narayaneeyam and in > course got his diseasecured and from then onwards > wherever he went for doing discourses hemade it a > point to discourse Narayaneeyam and by that only many > peoplecame to know even the existence of such a > hymn.Perhaps you may not beaware this fact.That is why > even his photo is adorned along withbhatthathiri in > GVR temple.He was not a vaishnava but an > ardentSaiva.So don't try to make your conclusion that > Sri > Guruvayurappan belongs to only people who are > Vaishanavites andall who visit the temple are > vaishnavas.That has stemmed from yourimagination.I am > not arguing with you as it is a waste I know asyou hv > a definite mind set up which can't accept other > things.This Imentioned even in my reply earlier. > > Just by writing a comment an ardent devotee of > Krishna won'tchange or get confused as you imagine and > if the devotee does the samethen he or she is not a > devotee of Sri Krishna.Arguments wll always bethere > and not necessarily be taken as a matter of conversion > from onesect to another sect.Just becoz the vaishnava > acharyas reject advaitafollowers of Sankara and others > can that argument be accepted and doyou think it has > any sanctity?This seems to be some conversion > theorynever believe advaita and only what vaishnava > acharyas said believethose things.Such things shuld > not hv been written as the same willonly confuse the > real bhakthas of Sri Krishna.who will get > theimpression of worshipping saivite Gods like Siva > and others are againstreligious spirit.You believe in > whatever things as I hv already said inmy earlier > reply that all depends on individuals perceptions > andconvictions.But ridiculing Sankara undoubtedly the > Greatest of alland praising only the vaishnava > acharyas is not the proper way ofpresenting the matter > and shows your immaturity only.You must hv the > broad vision to accept all things enunciated by all > the acharyasand not confining yourself in some shelf. > > Anyways there is no meaning to say to you who can't > hv the mindto accept the views of others also and > clinging to one particularthing and rejecting all the > other Great people who brought glory toIndia, is > simply futile.I hv never criticised Gita,Bhagavatham > and youimagine something as if I am trying to wean > away the devotees ofKrishna to some other sect.I am > not for any such move but definitelyyour writings show > you are on that path which is simply ridiculous > andpitiable.For your info I am not for Vaishnava sect > or Saiva sect as Ilove both sects > and worship the Gods of both sects and also a good > follower ofSri Guruvayurappan and I may hv my own > Ishta Devata and that ispersonal. > > Again I say I wrote the reply not to offend you > neither this oneor the previous one but only to make > you understand that you shuld hvmore broad views on > spiritual matters and not live like a frog in a > well.God Blessdear friend Krishnadaya. and don't get > agitated by this reply as I hvtold only the truth and > as an answer to your reply.Let us stop withthis as you > hv certain mind set which does not allow to make > yourthinking broader and you must accept the fact that > God is One whetherVaishnava God or Saiva God. > krishnadayawrote > > Krishna, Guruvayoorappa, > > It is not advisable to argue when someone questions > the > fundamental supreme authority of Sri Krishna as well > as His literary > incarnations and restricts the scope of discussion to > non-vaishnava > saints . As such, this write up is just to remove the > confusion in > the minds of Krishna-bhaktas who were disturbed by the > mentioned > distortion . > > When a Vaishnava goes to Guruvayoor temple , he/she > worships the > presiding Deity Guruvayoorappan as well as the > sub-deities therein > namely Siva, Ganesha , Bhagavathy and Ayyappan . As > such the > question of spiritual intolerance doesn't arise . > > Ishta-devatha is a term meaning "the God one prays > most." Sri > Krishna is the `Ishta-devatha of Vaishnavas for whom > focused Bhakti- > Yoga to Him is like life-air . > > Vaishnava authorites like Ramanuja , Madhava , > Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, > Melpathur Naryana Bhattathiri ,and Prabhupada have > asked their > followers to remain steadfast in their Bhakri-yoga by > fully complying > with Bhagavan's instructions . In fact , these > Acharyas strongly > rejected the Maya-vadi philosophy of the Advaitists . > Accordingly, > the Vaishnavas are relying on specific scriptures like > Bhagavatham , > Gita and Narayaneeyam which have the stamp of approval > by Bhagavan > Krishna Himself . And Bhagavan provides His Devotees > with > opportunities and wisdom to understand the concepts of > the mentioned > scriptures . A designer has to comply with the > specified codes and > standards in order to produce an acceptable product . > Same way , a > Vaishnava complies with the eternal instructions of > Sri Krishna > without fail . There is no difference between Sri > Krishna , His His > attributes and His instructions . > > Bhagavad Gita is relevant for all ages . Even in this > Kali-yuga , > Gita guides it's followers in the right path. > > A humble servant of Guruvayoorappan . > > ------------------------- > guruvayur ,GANAPATHY RAMAN > agraman62@ > wrote: > > > > This is only my thoughts and in no way be treated as > a rebuttal of > Krishnadayas postings as I hv already made known > Krishnadaya is a > devotee of Krishna and could not tolerate anything is > said other than > Krishna.But the fact is that Krishna is only one of > the eversomany > Gods in our Hindu mythology.Though His avatar was > different from > others and He preached Gita it becomes easier to quote > from what He > said.My point is then what abt other Gods and their > followers who > also get the same benefits which Krishna > promised.Krishna told only > arjuna in a battlefield His teachings.Following the > same in all > circumstances won't lead us > > in the present age as many of them are not > practicable.Hetaught > arjuna only to surrender to Him and fight the war > instead of running > out of the battle field and do the duty of a > Kshatriya.So just > banking only on Gita alone for all the ills of the > society won't help > much,I think.The teachings happened abt 4 or 5000 > years ago in a > different yuga and applying all the tenets in the > present age will > lead only to confusion.This does not mean I challenge > Krsihnadaya but > her wordings used seem to be not correct,I feel. > > > > Krishnadaya uses that jnanis is also devotees and > there arise > duality and such things.She harps on devotion and > diluting the same > amounts to absurdity.May be she is correct.But how > devotion comes?Is > it by seeing a Deity or by reading some texts or Gita? > She > elaborately quoted from Bhagavatam.Just becoz this > Group is dedicated > Sri Guruvayoorappan is it a must that one shuld quote > only > > from Gita,Bhagavatam and Narayaneeyam.Is there > anycompulsion.Or > the scriptures mean only these three.Then what abt > Nayanmars who are > 64 in number who worshipped Siva and made lot of hymns > in praise of > Him.Are they not followers or devotees?Sankara ,an > acknowledged > advaitin wrote Saundarya > > Lahiri,a beautiful celestial song on Devi shuld be > ignored?He was > no doubt a > > Realised soul and he never wrote that hymn for > himself as there > was no necessity for him as when one merged in the God > there is no > dualism but all can't become like him and hence he > coined so many > hymns on Devi ,Ananda Lahiri on Siva,Bhaja Govindam on > > Krishna,Subrahmanya bhujangam on Subrahmanya and there > was no > necesiity for him to do all those things when he knew > he was only > writing the same on himself being one with God but for > the > > other mortals like Krishnadaya and me to develop the > bhakthy > marga so that people like us can recite the same and > try to evolve > ourselves in the ladder of bhakthy. > > So too Ramakrishna Paramahansa worshipped Kali and > got her vision > and thru Her Grace got all the knowledge though he did > not study much > abt the scriptures and other things but becoz of the > Grace he could > quote so many teachings.The same thing is with sage > Ramana who took a > different path by > > having his own theory to find out whatwas he and > thru 'atma > vichara' he dived within himself and found that he was > also a speck > of the Creator.All Realised souls or jnanis though > initially they hv > to be bhakthas of some deitiy and thru severe > austerities and > spiritual discipline were able to merge in the Cosmic > Power and there > was no necessity for them to become a devotee again as > they hv > crossed that stage and when they had realised that all > are ONE then > who shuld be a devotee for whom?As we were having the > same problem > earlier I mentioned that the river is a river by name > only so long > the same reaches the ocean and when the same merges > with the ocean > then the identity of the river is lost and do you want > to say that > the ocean is a devotee of the river or vice versa when > the river has > already become one with the ocean? > > As I don't hv much knowledge abt sastras I can't > comment on > that.But how many sastras you know and do you know the > meaning of > what they import to the understanding of common people > like me.We > always hv readymade answer that such and such thing is > said in > sastras,Krishna has said such things in Gita, > > Bhagavatham says such and such things and so we > shuld follow.Then > are we not becoming something like a robot without > really > understanding and try to improve our own knowledge?For > anything and > everything we depend on some texts mean we just > surrender our God > given intelligence and wisdom to those quotes.Don' you > think so?Why > man is given intelligence and wisdom?To use it > > in a way that he or she shuld be able to study and > try to > understand both the aspects positive and negative and > the > applicability of the same in the times we live in and > not moving back > to several thousand years .We shuld try to study those > things and > also use our own versions and realise the reality > according to > change of times.What Gita says or Bhagavatham says > need not > necessarily be followed literally but one must use > one's senses and > try to intrepret > > according to needs.In the whole of the world how > many people are > real Krishna devotees?doyou think that you can make > the whole world > one of Krishna Conscious stage? I hv to ask you this > questions not > out of showing that I am greater than you in knowledge > or to show > some sort of ego complex which Idon't > > possess but your wordings are such which I can't > digest.Hence > this staright > > questions not to wound you but harping on one > subject only we > can't develop bhakthy but making ourselves adjusting > to the thoughts > of others only thru > > pursuasion one must try to make others realise the > facts that > contain in our > > statements.If you would hv covered all the aspects > of all deities > and all types of > > devotees of other deities then I would hv certainly > appreciated > you.But instead of that you chose the path of jnanis > and making that > others think devotion as absurdity are not in any way > ethical and it > shows some type of assertation that people who worship > other deities > and who got knowlede by worshipping their own deities > other than > Krishna are not devotees or bhakthas and attacking > jnanis are not the > proper way.Anyway you or I are not jnanis and then how > can we make > comment on them and no janni says thatyou hv to accept > his versions > only including Krishna who also distinguishes bhakthas > into four > categories. > > > > Your following of Krishna and your concern for Him > is laudable > but the way you hv presented is not palatable at least > to me.There > are so many saints who worship eversomany deities for > years and when > their karmic effects are over they > > get themselves merged in the Oneness and there is no > rebirth for > them and they need not come back again to hv more > experiences as even > Sri Krishna has said in Gita.Such souls are rarely > found and they > never exhibit themselves.So there is no more devotion > is required for > them as they hv become one with the Creator. > > Till we reach that time some following or devotion > of somebody is > a must and I used to say when one chooses one deity > one shuld cling > on to that.Then how bhakthy comes?Not from birth but > when the child > grows and the parents take the child to temples and > say good things > and the same shuld get imbibed in the mind of the > child and then it > will grow automatically over the years.Now a days how > many children > are taught bhakthy by their parents?Teaching Gita and > other things > can takeplace when the child grows up sufficiently > advanced and you > can't expect a child of even 10 to grasp what Krishna > said in > Gita.All those things > > can come only at a later part of time as Dr.Saroja > Ramanujam has > pointed in > > another mail.Till then the child will be more > interested in his > or her studies andto > > come out successfully in life and at that time if > you go on > teaching Gita and other things they will even lose > what little > interest they hv got.Even during Krishnas' time or > subsequent times > how many people knew Gita nobody knows.Actually I came > to get some > interest in Gita only after hearing a 'Gita Yagna' > which the late > Swami Chinmayanada used to conduct and I was attracted > by his > language,erudition,the wayhe used to pronounce the > subject in avery > lucid manner.So expecting too much and quoting Gita > and Bhagavatam > may be ok for a group but in real life I wonder how > far the same will > attract persons.Of course in all discourses people may > throng as > their is no dearth for people in thiscountry > > anywhere but afterwards what happen to them and > whether they > follow the teachings or just ignore and appreciate > only the > scholorlypresentation of the > > lecturer we don't know. > > Dear Krishna,if any of my sentences hv the effect of > wounding > your feelings kindly bear with me as it is not my > intention to offend > you in any manner.You wrote something and just I > countered that is > all.Since this will make other members also to take > part in a new > twist to the points I hv put some questions which > sometimes you may > find the same difficult to answer.So with all the > articles,as > putting questions is easy but to give a convincing > reply is difficult. > > Again I beg your excuses if you feel in anyway > offended by my > writings as I hv always treated you as my good > friend.Also I say I > am not against Bhagavatam, > > Gita and other scriptures but much dependence on the > sayings > won't help in the present day world as what Krishna > preached was > under different circumstances though they may be > applicable in some > cases and not in all respects. > > > > Hare Krishna, > > > > agraman. > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - > Answers > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - > Answers > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 I fully agree with Ganapathyraman and Gopalakrishnanan . I have already voiced my views on religion and philosophy in my previous post. However I would like to add one or more points.Speaking from my own experience it is right that knowing about other views and beliefs need not confuse a true devotee because true devotion is seeing beyond the form of worship and rcognise the divine presence everywhere.You may see God in one form and other person can seein another form.It is all various disguises of the same one. I am giving below my answer to a comment thatI am a vaishnavite and hence I will only narrow myself to the views of vaishnava acharyas. Please don't stamp me as a vaishnavite who is limited to the views of Deika and Ramanuja. I am a siromani in sanskrit in advaita vedanta and a great follower of Swami Chinmayananda in his times. I take classes in both advaita and visishtadvaita.I follow visishtadvaita for my own spiritual progress as you have to follow one acharya parampara and because I worship Narayana.I have read both Sankarabhashya and sribhashya of Ramanuja on Brahmasuthra.I have also studied the higher advaita texts like advaitasiddhi,sidhanthalesa sangraha etc and at the moment teaching PANCHDASI. Moreover I have also studied the otherIndian systems of philosphy, SANKHYA,NYAYA, YOGA, BUDHISM AND JAINISM for my thesis and at present posting sankhya system in sulekhablogs. I have studied also western philosophy for my MA Degree and I found all the systems of philosophy interesting and similar in some respects.After all the Reality is one and the diffrence is only in the interpretations according to the trend of thought and expression of each phliosopher. Sri Ramakrishna has said that he has followed different schools of thought only to find that they were all telling about the same thing.I have posted an article on the Universality of philosophy in sulekha blogs sometime back in which I have explained this. In short I am a phlosopher first and then a religious person. Saroja Ramanujam GANAPATHY RAMAN <agraman62 wrote: Dear Sri.Gopalakrishna, I absolutely agree with you.In many places even in Trivandrum Anantha Padmanabha swamy worships Siva when he is lying on the serpent and one can see him worshipping Siva below his right hand.So too as pointed out by Keerthy Kumar in Rameswaram Sri Rama worships Siva.The same I too stressed that there are no differences between vaishnavas and saivites.But the way in which Krishnadaya attacked the advaita greats like Sankara and euologising only the Vaishnava acharyas like Ramanuja ,Madhwa etc I felt bad.They hv got their own methods of intrepretation and depending on individual tastes one can worship in any form of God according to one's choice.That does not mean that what they worship and what acharyas they follow are the only superiors and attacking the other equally great acharyas like Sankara though she has not mentioned him by name but in essence referred to him only when she attacked Sankara ,a great advaita can't be digested.As I know Krishnadaya is the product of ISCKON and the devotion of Krishna Conscious movement made to make such comments. Though Krishnadaya is my friend and we hv exchanged mails previously talking rubbish things like this is not in good taste.Let Krishnadaya be a devotee of Krishna and nobody objects and it is the individual freedom.But that does not give any blanket authority to praise one set of acharyas and deride another set who preached differently.Further by this Krishnadaya also mentioned that such comments will confuse the Krishna devotees.Why they shuld be confused?I can't understand.So the confusion is on the part of Krishnadaya and not on the part of the devotees of Sri Guruvayoorappan. In fact Sri.Gopalakrishna, I never wanted to reply to that mail but when the attack comes as if there seems to be some conversion effects of saivaites to make vaishnavites into saivites I could not keep but had to reply.It seems Krishnadaya is only a naive in such matters with such fixed mindset up and could not digest other things also becoz of the connection of Krishna Conscious movement such things come out automatically.It is something like that in Tamilnadu in Iyengars there are two sets Vadagalai and Tengalai and they treat each other as if other sect is untouchable though the trend has changed to a great extent still the same is prevalent in some parts. Anyways there is no need for me to convince Krishnadaya on this and it is left to individual choices but I only wanted to confine the bhakthy to Krishna and attacking great acharyas with the sub standard knowledge one possesses though the claim may be different.I don't wish to go futher in detail as I know Krishnadaya and her group well.I must thank you for correcting me abt the vaishnava concept and why there shuld be a request for pardon when I always enjoyed to hear the views of others.So such sentences are not at all necessary and people like you are there only to guide if some are wrong in their views and your opinions are always welcomed.Thanks a lot Sri.Gopalakrishna for your humble way of putting the matters as you are more aged than me and it is your right to correct me if I am wrong and I will always accept such corrections and I always value experience and true knowledge of others. Regards, agraman. "K.V Gopalakrishna" <gopalakrishna.kv > wrote: Dear Sri. Ganapathy Raman, Krishnadaya and others.Radhe Krishna.There seems to be a small wrong understanding about the term "Vaishnava.". The term "Vaishnava" is referred to also in many places in Bhagavatam. It means "the one who worships Vishnu". It is wrong to assume that a socalled "Vaishnava" can only worship Vishnu. Vishnu Himself is said to be worshipping Lord Siva in many places. So it is the understanding of the term "Vaishnava" makes all the difference.Kindly pardon me for the interference.In humble devotion,KVG.GANAPATHY RAMAN wrote: So according to Krishnadaya only people who are Vaishnavites are expected to visit and worship Sri Guruvayurappan and when the main Deity plays prominent role sub deities don't hv much importance.This seems to be a strange theory that only Vaishnavites shuld visit Krishna temples and Saivites visit Siva temples and thereby distinquishing even the very nature of God and splitting Him into two parts as Vaishnava God and Saiva God.Quite strange.There is no necesiity for any argument as this requires only commonsense that all people who visit Krishna temple at Guruvayur are not Vaishnavites as Krishnadaya may imagine.They also worshiip Siva ,Sastha and other deities of Saivites.Why shuld God be baulkanised as Vaishnava God and Saiva God?In Siva temples too we hv vaishnava deities and all worship that and no disputes. Krishnadaya must also understand that Narayaneeyam might hv been made by Melpathur but the glory of the same was spread allover India and abroad by the late Anantharama Deekshidar who was a doyen of discourses and when he was afflicted by illness he went to GVR and worshipped Sri Krishna thru Narayaneeyam and in course got his disease cured and from then onwards wherever he went for doing discourses he made it a point to discourse Narayaneeyam and by that only many people came to know even the existence of such a hymn.Perhaps you may not be aware this fact.That is why even his photo is adorned along with bhatthathiri in GVR temple.He was not a vaishnava but an ardent Saiva.So don't try to make your conclusion that Sri Guruvayurappan belongs to only people who are Vaishanavites and all who visit the temple are vaishnavas.That has stemmed from your imagination.I am not arguing with you as it is a waste I know as you hv a definite mind set up which can't accept other things.This I mentioned even in my reply earlier. Just by writing a comment an ardent devotee of Krishna won't change or get confused as you imagine and if the devotee does the same then he or she is not a devotee of Sri Krishna.Arguments wll always be there and not necessarily be taken as a matter of conversion from one sect to another sect.Just becoz the vaishnava acharyas reject advaita followers of Sankara and others can that argument be accepted and do you think it has any sanctity?This seems to be some conversion theory never believe advaita and only what vaishnava acharyas said believe those things.Such things shuld not hv been written as the same will only confuse the real bhakthas of Sri Krishna.who will get the impression of worshipping saivite Gods like Siva and others are against religious spirit.You believe in whatever things as I hv already said in my earlier reply that all depends on individuals perceptions and convictions.But ridiculing Sankara undoubtedly the Greatest of all and praising only the vaishnava acharyas is not the proper way of presenting the matter and shows your immaturity only.You must hv the broad vision to accept all things enunciated by all the acharyas and not confining yourself in some shelf. Anyways there is no meaning to say to you who can't hv the mind to accept the views of others also and clinging to one particular thing and rejecting all the other Great people who brought glory to India, is simply futile.I hv never criticised Gita,Bhagavatham and you imagine something as if I am trying to wean away the devotees of Krishna to some other sect.I am not for any such move but definitely your writings show you are on that path which is simply ridiculous and pitiable.For your info I am not for Vaishnava sect or Saiva sect as I love both sects and worship the Gods of both sects and also a good follower of Sri Guruvayurappan and I may hv my own Ishta Devata and that is personal. Again I say I wrote the reply not to offend you neither this one or the previous one but only to make you understand that you shuld hv more broad views on spiritual matters and not live like a frog in a well.God Bless dear friend Krishnadaya. and don't get agitated by this reply as I hv told only the truth and as an answer to your reply.Let us stop with this as you hv certain mind set which does not allow to make your thinking broader and you must accept the fact that God is One whether Vaishnava God or Saiva God. <krishnadaya > wrote Krishna, Guruvayoorappa,It is not advisable to argue when someone questions the fundamental supreme authority of Sri Krishna as well as His literary incarnations and restricts the scope of discussion to non-vaishnava saints . As such, this write up is just to remove the confusion in the minds of Krishna-bhaktas who were disturbed by the mentioned distortion . When a Vaishnava goes to Guruvayoor temple , he/she worships the presiding Deity Guruvayoorappan as well as the sub-deities therein namely Siva, Ganesha , Bhagavathy and Ayyappan . As such the question of spiritual intolerance doesn't arise . Ishta-devatha is a term meaning "the God one prays most." Sri Krishna is the `Ishta-devatha of Vaishnavas for whom focused Bhakti-Yoga to Him is like life-air . Vaishnava authorites like Ramanuja , Madhava , Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Melpathur Naryana Bhattathiri ,and Prabhupada have asked their followers to remain steadfast in their Bhakri-yoga by fully complying with Bhagavan's instructions . In fact , these Acharyas strongly rejected the Maya-vadi philosophy of the Advaitists . Accordingly, the Vaishnavas are relying on specific scriptures like Bhagavatham , Gita and Narayaneeyam which have the stamp of approval by Bhagavan Krishna Himself . And Bhagavan provides His Devotees with opportunities and wisdom to understand the concepts of the mentioned scriptures . A designer has to comply with the specified codes and standards in order to produce an acceptable product . Same way , a Vaishnava complies with the eternal instructions of Sri Krishna without fail . There is no difference between Sri Krishna , His His attributes and His instructions . Bhagavad Gita is relevant for all ages . Even in this Kali-yuga , Gita guides it's followers in the right path. A humble servant of Guruvayoorappan . -------------------------guruvayur , GANAPATHY RAMAN <agraman62 wrote:>> This is only my thoughts and in no way be treated as a rebuttal of Krishnadayas postings as I hv already made known Krishnadaya is a devotee of Krishna and could not tolerate anything is said other than Krishna.But the fact is that Krishna is only one of the eversomany Gods in our Hindu mythology.Though His avatar was different from others and He preached Gita it becomes easier to quote from what He said.My point is then what abt other Gods and their followers who also get the same benefits which Krishna promised.Krishna told only arjuna in a battlefield His teachings.Following the same in all circumstances won't lead us > in the present age as many of them are not practicable.He taught arjuna only to surrender to Him and fight the war instead of running out of the battle field and do the duty of a Kshatriya.So just banking only on Gita alone for all the ills of the society won't help much,I think.The teachings happened abt 4 or 5000 years ago in a different yuga and applying all the tenets in the present age will lead only to confusion.This does not mean I challenge Krsihnadaya but her wordings used seem to be not correct,I feel.> > Krishnadaya uses that jnanis is also devotees and there arise duality and such things.She harps on devotion and diluting the same amounts to absurdity.May be she is correct.But how devotion comes?Is it by seeing a Deity or by reading some texts or Gita? She elaborately quoted from Bhagavatam.Just becoz this Group is dedicated Sri Guruvayoorappan is it a must that one shuld quote only > from Gita,Bhagavatam and Narayaneeyam.Is there any compulsion.Or the scriptures mean only these three.Then what abt Nayanmars who are 64 in number who worshipped Siva and made lot of hymns in praise of Him.Are they not followers or devotees?Sankara ,an acknowledged advaitin wrote Saundarya > Lahiri,a beautiful celestial song on Devi shuld be ignored?He was no doubt a> Realised soul and he never wrote that hymn for himself as there was no necessity for him as when one merged in the God there is no dualism but all can't become like him and hence he coined so many hymns on Devi ,Ananda Lahiri on Siva,Bhaja Govindam on Krishna,Subrahmanya bhujangam on Subrahmanya and there was no necesiity for him to do all those things when he knew he was only writing the same on himself being one with God but for the > other mortals like Krishnadaya and me to develop the bhakthy marga so that people like us can recite the same and try to evolve ourselves in the ladder of bhakthy.> So too Ramakrishna Paramahansa worshipped Kali and got her vision and thru Her Grace got all the knowledge though he did not study much abt the scriptures and other things but becoz of the Grace he could quote so many teachings.The same thing is with sage Ramana who took a different path by > having his own theory to find out whatwas he and thru 'atma vichara' he dived within himself and found that he was also a speck of the Creator.All Realised souls or jnanis though initially they hv to be bhakthas of some deitiy and thru severe austerities and spiritual discipline were able to merge in the Cosmic Power and there was no necessity for them to become a devotee again as they hv crossed that stage and when they had realised that all are ONE then who shuld be a devotee for whom?As we were having the same problem earlier I mentioned that the river is a river by name only so long the same reaches the ocean and when the same merges with the ocean then the identity of the river is lost and do you want to say that the ocean is a devotee of the river or vice versa when the river has already become one with the ocean?> As I don't hv much knowledge abt sastras I can't comment on that.But how many sastras you know and do you know the meaning of what they import to the understanding of common people like me.We always hv readymade answer that such and such thing is said in sastras,Krishna has said such things in Gita,> Bhagavatham says such and such things and so we shuld follow.Then are we not becoming something like a robot without really understanding and try to improve our own knowledge?For anything and everything we depend on some texts mean we just surrender our God given intelligence and wisdom to those quotes.Don' you think so?Why man is given intelligence and wisdom?To use it > in a way that he or she shuld be able to study and try to understand both the aspects positive and negative and the applicability of the same in the times we live in and not moving back to several thousand years .We shuld try to study those things and also use our own versions and realise the reality according to change of times.What Gita says or Bhagavatham says need not necessarily be followed literally but one must use one's senses and try to intrepret > according to needs.In the whole of the world how many people are real Krishna devotees?doyou think that you can make the whole world one of Krishna Conscious stage? I hv to ask you this questions not out of showing that I am greater than you in knowledge or to show some sort of ego complex which Idon't > possess but your wordings are such which I can't digest.Hence this staright > questions not to wound you but harping on one subject only we can't develop bhakthy but making ourselves adjusting to the thoughts of others only thru > pursuasion one must try to make others realise the facts that contain in our > statements.If you would hv covered all the aspects of all deities and all types of > devotees of other deities then I would hv certainly appreciated you.But instead of that you chose the path of jnanis and making that others think devotion as absurdity are not in any way ethical and it shows some type of assertation that people who worship other deities and who got knowlede by worshipping their own deities other than Krishna are not devotees or bhakthas and attacking jnanis are not the proper way.Anyway you or I are not jnanis and then how can we make comment on them and no janni says thatyou hv to accept his versions only including Krishna who also distinguishes bhakthas into four categories.> > Your following of Krishna and your concern for Him is laudable but the way you hv presented is not palatable at least to me.There are so many saints who worship eversomany deities for years and when their karmic effects are over they > get themselves merged in the Oneness and there is no rebirth for them and they need not come back again to hv more experiences as even Sri Krishna has said in Gita.Such souls are rarely found and they never exhibit themselves.So there is no more devotion is required for them as they hv become one with the Creator.> Till we reach that time some following or devotion of somebody is a must and I used to say when one chooses one deity one shuld cling on to that.Then how bhakthy comes?Not from birth but when the child grows and the parents take the child to temples and say good things and the same shuld get imbibed in the mind of the child and then it will grow automatically over the years.Now a days how many children are taught bhakthy by their parents?Teaching Gita and other things can takeplace when the child grows up sufficiently advanced and you can't expect a child of even 10 to grasp what Krishna said in Gita.All those things> can come only at a later part of time as Dr.Saroja Ramanujam has pointed in> another mail.Till then the child will be more interested in his or her studies andto> come out successfully in life and at that time if you go on teaching Gita and other things they will even lose what little interest they hv got.Even during Krishnas' time or subsequent times how many people knew Gita nobody knows.Actually I came to get some interest in Gita only after hearing a 'Gita Yagna' which the late Swami Chinmayanada used to conduct and I was attracted by his language,erudition,the wayhe used to pronounce the subject in a very lucid manner.So expecting too much and quoting Gita and Bhagavatam may be ok for a group but in real life I wonder how far the same will attract persons.Of course in all discourses people may throng as their is no dearth for people in thiscountry > anywhere but afterwards what happen to them and whether they follow the teachings or just ignore and appreciate only the scholorlypresentation of the > lecturer we don't know.> Dear Krishna,if any of my sentences hv the effect of wounding your feelings kindly bear with me as it is not my intention to offend you in any manner.You wrote something and just I countered that is all.Since this will make other members also to take part in a new twist to the points I hv put some questions which sometimes you may find the same difficult to answer.So with all the articles,as putting questions is easy but to give a convincing reply is difficult.> Again I beg your excuses if you feel in anyway offended by my writings as I hv always treated you as my good friend.Also I say I am not against Bhagavatam,> Gita and other scriptures but much dependence on the sayings won't help in the present day world as what Krishna preached was under different circumstances though they may be applicable in some cases and not in all respects.> > Hare Krishna,> > agraman.> > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers> Here?s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers Here?s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers May god bless you, Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. See the all-new, redesigned .com. Check it out. 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.