Guest guest Posted January 22, 2000 Report Share Posted January 22, 2000 A lot of heat has been generated without giving importance to the actual string of events that caused it. Sri Gopal Potti has done lot of charity and service to Madhva community and very likely to others as well. May God bless him and his family for all that he has done. But this need not come in the way of philosophical discussions or the position VMS takes in assserting its stand. To recap, I am giving only relevent portions. Readers can go back and check the archives for complete details, if they want to. Sri Prasanna Krishna was posting a very descriptive account of " tAratamya " and Sri Krishna Kalale asked the following question. 3. What are the relative positions of : other popular devatas such as Aiyyappa, Kali? Sri Prasanna Krishna felt obliged to answer and he wrote: > " A) Ayyappa is not considered avatAra of any dEvatha according to Madhwa >Philosophy. > I do not want to comment any further on this. But I strongly recommend >any follower of dwaita philosophy to stop worshipping Ayyappa if they are >doing. " Please note that he did not attack any individual. Please look at the choice of words he used. This has been later twisted and misstated in various forms like " Worshippers of Ayyappa have to be stopped " etc. Sri Potti responded: > " " So to recommend stop worshipping Lord Ayyappa shows lack of maturity on >one's part and I strongly suggest that madhva extremists lay the facts and >leave up to the members to decide what to follow. " " Sri Prasanna Krishna responded: >Dear Sri Gopal! >Namaskaragalu! >Sorry if I had hurt ur sentiments. >Note : I definitely agree to the fact the it is up to each individual to >believe or not any concept. >Let me clear one point. This I am not pointing to either >Ayyappa/Saibaba/Santoshimata or any others. >Pl. take the gist of it. * deleted * >Once again, let me be clear that I am not criticising anyone and I request >the readers to take the gist of my argument. The participation got bigger with Nataraj asking relevent questions about validity which should have been taken in proper spirit. Sri Potti's statement: >From above one can see that I practice Madhva philosophy and not a >theoretician. >If maddhva extremists think that Lord Sri Krishna is going to punish Gopal >for worshipping Lord Ayyappa, they are in fool's paradise. Madhva Philosophy >came into existance only during 1238-1317 A.D, do these people believe that >nobody got mukthi and went to heaven prior to Madhva's time. This is just like >Southern Baptists preaching getting to heaven is only through Jesus Christ >as if no one had gone to heaven prior to that. >So I do not want anyone telling me what I shoud do with repect to worship. >I do not care whether I am called a madhva or a nonmadhva. No one made any personal attacks and the discussion was purely philosophical. Being a Madhva one should know some of the simple facts (of course which is based on faith which I will discuss further down): The doctrine of Tattvavaada is considered to be eternal; in historical times, it was revived by Ananda Tiirtha (Madhvaachaarya). Madhva people never went on spreading their religion by the kind of means Southern Baptists used. Only those who got convinced are the ones that embraced the dvaita philosophy (more aptly known as tattvavAda). For a Madhva, to coin a word " Madhva extremists " and equate them to Southern Baptists is a self-damaging statement. Another question raised: >If Pralaya had taken thousands of years back and the whole world was >under water, Lord Narayana being the supreme deity, must have created >every thing after that. Is it possible that Sri Lord Narayana must >have created GODS of other religions ?!!! so that the whole complex >world can be managed more effectively. Crazy thinking on my part !!! The basic fact in tattvavAda is that no jIva was created by God. They are all anAdi (beginningless). Pralaya is not a one time event. In the cyclic process of infinite time, many pralayas have taken place. One who is all Supreme is the one who is all independent. The Lord's name Narayana is not like any name such as devadatta. To know more about it, one can go to CMS archives and read. What is most sad situation is that every thing was labelled as " hatred " and " intolerance " . What shocked me most is Sri Kanekal's remarks that also went into the same groove. In addition he remarked >I do find it extremely disturbing that Vivekanda and other were >regarded with what was tantamount to hatred. Is there nothing in between " treating someone as God " and " hatred " ? If " not treating someone as God " is tantamount to hatred, then I must confess that I hate all my dearest friends as I do not deem any of my dear friends as a deity. Let any one worship any god(s). What is wrong in giving Madhva position and recommendation to those who want to follow the Madhva sampradaya? How can statements like " show us some pramANa from sadAgamAs and we will accept " be taken as intolerance? The real irony is that one who said " sorry " was labelled intolerant and an extremist and the one who refused to apologize was sympathized as a " hurt one " . More important is the fact that this list is supposed to be " Vishvamadhvasangha " and not " vishva Hindu cultural organization " or " Association of religions of the world " . In the same context, regarding the picture of Mohini in NY temple calendar, NY temple is not Madhva temple. In Connecticut temple, there are Jaina and Buddha idols as well since those groups also contributed money, it is made a common place of worship. Sri Rajaram Cavale wrote: " If there is an Almighty, who is only That One who is beyond everything, saving only those who believe in Him and if He can not appear to the people of different visions in different forms, then He suffers from a very serious limitation. " " This is a circular argument used by all religions of the world including Hinduism. Therefore we can not write off a person because he recognizes Ayyappa. " How can a philosophical discussion be called " writing off a person " ? Nobody is writing off anybody. Who says God does not appear in different forms? That does not mean we can call any body as god. That is where the guidance from the great gurus comes to our rescue. Faith is a starting point. That is the one that breaks the circular loop. But that faith has to be a disciplined faith which is gotten by variuos schools. As this list caters the needs of Madhvas, the statements from Madhva gurus are used as standard. That is where the gurus play an important role. HH Sri Sugunendra tiirtha said: " One should act like a bee, which collects and stores the essence from different flowers, and makes its own special honey. " To know what is honey and what is poison, one must have the guiding light of the able gurus of their sampradaya who know the facts. So, this does not mean just make a conglomerate of all religions and end up with a totally illogical product. Also Sri Vadiraja and Sri Madhvacharya accepted people from other walks of life does not mean that they approved their earlier life-styles or principles. Some may have changed genuinely and some jump-shipped but could not alter their life-style. But, if we accept such a statement then the fact that SrI Madhvacharya brought Sri Trivikrama Panditacharya into his folds will imply that advaita is an acceptable philosophy as Trivikrama Pandita was advaitin before he became a Madhva follower. Stating the correct philosophical aspect unequivocally does not imply " hatred " or " intolerance " or " writing off a person " . Replacing the threats of delete buttons with threats of " quitting " is not a right approach at all. " sarvaguNa sampUrNaH sarva doshha vivarjitaH prIyatAM prIta evAlaM vishhNurme paramaH suhR^it.h " " God has infinitely auspicious qualities and devoid of all the flaws. May He be pleased. Lord Vishnu is the most dear one to me. " One has to love the Supreme Lord more than oneself. Regards, Keshava Rao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2000 Report Share Posted January 22, 2000 I just want to elaborate on the beautiful comment made by HH Sri Sugunendra tiirtha: " One should act like a bee, which collects and stores the essence from different flowers, and makes its own special honey. " This great pontiff has made extra-ordinary service by touring all over U.S. and spreading the words of knowledge. It will be a gross injustice to misquote, misinterpret, or misrepresent the statements made by him. I felt an inspiration just being in his presence. The context and the place where he had to speak must be taken into account. Even his words about " worshipping Ayyappa " , he may have meant not to hurt Sri Potti's feelings. He would not have said that it is Madhva tradition to worship Ayyappa. Just to reiterate, to know what is honey and what is poison, one must have the guiding light of the able gurus of their sampradaya who know the facts. If one needed any clarification on his speech, one should ask the great pontiff only and not take the statement out in various forms. Ceratainly the swamijii would not have meant that just make a conglomerate of all religions and end up with a totally illogical product. Regards, Keshava Rao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2000 Report Share Posted January 23, 2000 Friends, I was very happy to see Mr. K Thadpathri's voice of sanity and balance in the welter of highly personalised and emotional debate. As the Director seems to have decided already that no further points are likely to emerge on the philosophical issues involved, I respect his decision. But I would still like to quote Ishavasya Upanishad and its simple translation to justify the unavoidable necessity to work towards a final Siddhantha on such issues, instead of finding either oversimplified arguments like freedom of choice of beliefs, or sweeping the real points involved under the proverbial carpet. VMS as a body should address itself to the principles underlying such debates and organise frank, fair and valid debates for Thathva Nirnaya rather than consider victory or defeat in debate. The following extracts are from a book " Ishavasya Upanishath " with Bhashya along with Kannada translation published by Sri Raghavendrashrama , Bangalore. Manthra No. 9. " Andhamthamah pravishanthi ye avidyamupaasathe thatho bhuya iva the' thamo ya u vidyaayaam rathah " Bhashya - " Anyathopaasakaa ye thu thamondham yanthyasamshayam. Thatho'dhikamiva vyaktham yaanthi. Theshaaam anindakaah thasmadyathaaswaroopam thu naaraaayanamanaamayam ayatharthasya nindaam cha " Manthra No. 10. " Anyadevaahurvidyayaa anyadaahuravidyayaa ithi shushruma dheeraanaam yenasthadvyaachachakshire " Manthra No. 11. " Vidyaam chaavidyaam cha yasthavedobhayam saha avidyayaa mruthyum theerthvaa vidyayaamruthamashnuthe " Bhashya - Ye viduh saha sajjanaah, The' nindayaa aytharthasya dukhaajnaanadiroopinah dukhaajnaanaadisamtheernaah sukhajnaanaadiroopinah yathaarthasya parijnaanaath sukhajnaanaadiroopathamm yaanthi " Those who worship the Parathathva in a contrary manner (vipareetha), they will attain Andhanthamas. Those who are engaged only in getting the correct Jnana (Yathartha) and will not reject incorrect Jnana (Ayathartha) will attain even greater Andhanthamas. Both Ayathartha Jnana and absence of rejection of Ayathartha Jnana lead to Thamas. Therefore, one should obtain both the correct Jnana of the Supreme Being, who is free from all defects and should also reject such incorrect Jnana that causes attribution of defects to the Lord. It is stated by the Jnanis that by (Avidya) rejection of Anayathaajnana, one gets rid of Anishta and gets bliss by (Vidya) Yathartha Jnana. Rejection of Ayathartha Jnana leads to removal of Dukha (called Mruthyu here), while acquisition of Yathartha Jnana, one attains Mukthi or freedom from bondage (Amrutha). NAPSRao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2000 Report Share Posted January 23, 2000 !!! srIhi !!! !!! shrI gurubhyO namaha !!! !!! parama gurubhyO namaha !!! !!! lAtavya chakravarthi bhAvI samIra shrI vAdirAja gurubhyO namaha !!! !!! shrImadAnanda tIrtha gurubhyO namaha !!! !!! bimbakriyAyaiva kriyAvAn aham dAsajIvaha !!! Namaskaragalu! E mahImandaladoliha guru | shrI madAchAryara mathAnuga | rA mahA vaishnavara vishnu pAdAbja madhukarara || stOmakAnamipe avaravara | nAmagala nempElve bahuvidha | yAma yAmangalali bodhisalemage sanmathiya || [Harikathamrutasara - Sandhi 32 - Padya 53] There has been much debate recently regarding Ayyappa. Each one came up with their own view. I definitely would not like to contribute any further on this issue, but would definitely wish to thank all those who could understand my hridaya. A philosophical discussion : -------------------------- In my previous posting on jIva sAdhana vichAra, we had come across the topic of brahma kalpa. I would like to present here an overview of kAla as defined in Srimad harikathAmrutasAra by Sri jagannAtha dAsa's Indweller sri jagannAtha vitthala. The basis for the subject is the commentary by Sri sankarshana wodeyaru. Pl. excuse me for any mistakes and pl. correct me wherever I am wrong. Hope the calculations shown hereunder are not confusing. As usual, the mail is quite long and I request sAdhakAs to have a patient reading. If the topic is already dealt in the mailing list, I request your apologies. kAla vichAra (Time Aspect) -------------------------- The following is a detailed description of KAla wrt. to mAnavAs, dEvathAs & shrI brahma dEvaru 1) Why so much importance to kAla ? 2) What is so important about kAla ? The above questions are answered by Sri jagannAtha dAsaru : kAlAntargata kAlaniyAmaka kAlAtEta trikAlagna | kAlapravarthaka kAlanivarthaka kAlOthpAdaka kAlamurthi || tava dAsOham tava dAsOham shrI hari is kAlAntaryAmi & He is kAla shabdha vAchya. upAsana of kAlAnAmaka shrI hari forms one of the most important sAdhanAs. parama sUkshma kAlAmsha is considered to be 'kshaNa'. kshaNa could further be divided into smaller portions, but this would be out of human imagination and hence shrI jagannAtha dAsaru has considered kshana to be the starting point. kAla vichAra of mAnavAs ----------------------- 1. kshaNa 2. 5 kshaNAs = 1 truti 3. 50 trutis = 1 lava 4. 2 lavAs = 1 nimEsha 5. 8 nimEshas = 1 mAtra 6. 2 mAtrAs = 1 guru 7. 10 gurus = 1 prANa 8. 6 prANAs = 1 paLa 9. 60 paLAs = 1 ghatika (ghalige) 10. 30 ghatikAs = 1 night (12 hrs.) & 30 ghatikAs = 1 hagalu (12 hrs.) => 60 ghatikAs = 1 day considered to be 24 hours. 11. 15 days = 1 paksha 12. 2 pakshAs = 1 mAsa (month) 13. 2 mAsAs = 1 rutu 14. 3 rutUs = 1 ayana 15. 2 ayanAs = 1 varsha (year) => 360 Man days = 1 Man year shrImad harikathAmrutasAra quotations from aparOksha tAratamya sandhi - 24: paramasUkshma kshaNavaidu truti | karesuvudu aivattu truti lava | eradu lavavu nimEsha nimEshagaLentu mAtra yuga | guru dasha prANavu paLavu ha | nneradu bANavu ghaLige trimshati | iruLu hagalaravattu ghatikagaLahOrAtrigaLu || 56 || E divArAtrigaLeradu hadi | naidu pakshagaLeradu mAsaga | LAdapavu mAsadvayave rutu rututrayagaLayana | aiduvuvu ayanadvayAbda kru | tAdiyugagaLu dEvamAnadi | dwAdashasahasra varushagaLahavadanu pELuvenu || 57 || kAla vichAra of dEvathAs ------------------------ 360 Man Days or 1 Man Year = 1 dEvatha Day => 360 Man years = 1 dEvatha year => 1,29,600 Man Days = 1 dEvatha year kAla vichAra of ChaturyugAs (kruta - trEta - dwApara - kali -------------------------- DY -> dEvatha Year MY -> Man Year 1. kruta Yuga = 4,800 DY = 17,28,000 MY 2. trEta Yuga = 3,600 DY = 12,96,000 MY 3. dwApara Yuga = 2,400 DY = 8,64,000 MY 4. kali Yuga = 1,200 DY = 4,32,000 MY ------------- ---------------- Total 12,000 DY = 43,20,000 MY ------------- ---------------- chatussAviradentu nUravu | krutayugake trisahasra saleshat | shatavu trEtage dwAparake dwisahasra nAnUru || ditijapati kaliyugake sAvira | shatagaLa dvaya kUdi E dE | vategaLige hanneradusAviravahavu varushagaLu || 58 || prathamayugakELadhikavare vim | shatisulakshAshtOtthara vim | shathisahasra manushyamAnAbdhagaLu shaNNavati | mitha sahasrada lakshadasha | dwithiya trutiyake entulakshada | chaturashashtisahasra kaligidharardha chintipudu || 59 || kAla vichAra of brahma dEvaru ----------------------------- 1. Chaturyuga = 1 divya yuga 2. 1000 divya yugAs = 12 hrs. of brahma dEvaru 3. 1000 divya yugAs = 12 hrs. of brahma dEvaru => 1000 * 43,20,000 MY = 432,00,00,000 MY = 12 hrs. of brahma dEvaru => 2000 divya yugAs = 1 Day (24 hrs.) of brahma dEvaru (1 dina kalpa) => 864,00,00,000 MY = 1 Day of brahma dEvaru mUradhikanAlvatthulakshada | lArumUreradadhikasAvira | Ereradu yugavarusha sankhyeya gaiyalinitahudu | sUri pacchise sAviradanA | nnOru mUvatteradukOti sa | rOruhAsanagidu divasavembaru vipashchitaru || 60 || shatadhrutige E divasagaLu trim | shatiyu mAsadwAdashAbdavu | shataveradaroLu sarvajEvOtpatti sthitilayavu | shrutismrutigaLu pELutihava | chyutage nimishavidendu sukhashA | shvatage pAsatiyembuvare brahmAdi divijaranu || 61 || 5. 30 Days of brahma dEvaru = 1 month of brahma dEvaru prabhAsa khAnda of skanda purANa specifies the names of these 30 days This info. has been collected from some other source. Its not mentioned in harikathAmrutasAra or its related commentary. The thirty Dina Kalpas of Brahma are: (1) svEta, (2) nIlAlOhita, (3) vAmadEva, (4) gathantara, (5) raurava, (6) prAna, (7) bruhat, (8) kandarpa, (9) sadyOtha, (10) EshaNa, (11) dhyAna, (12) sArasvata, (13) udAna, (14) garuda, (15) kaurma, (16) narasimha, (17) samAdhi, (18) agnEya, (19) vishnuja, (20) saura, (21) sOma, (22) bhAvana, (23) supuma, (24) vaikunta, (25) archisha, (26) vAli, (27) vairAja, (28) gauri, (29) mahEshwara, (30) paitra. 6. 360 days of brahma dEvaru = 1 year of brahma dEvaru 7. 100 years of brahma dEvaru = 1 brahma kalpa The following info. to an extent has been collected from the discourse of Sri Bannanje Govindacharya on Srimad bhAgavatha. kAla vichAra of manvantarAs ---------------------------- 1. brahma dEvAs hagalu (Day - 12 hrs.) is considered to be srushti kAla. 2. brahma dEvAs rAtri (Night - 12 hrs.) is considered to be praLaya kAla (Dina Pralaya). 3. brahma dEvAs hagalu is sub-divided among 14 manUs & they are referred to as manvantarAs. manUs are adhipatIs of these manvantaras. The following is the list of manUs in serial order and niyAmaka sriman nArAyaNa i) yajna - svAyambhuva Manu ii) vibhu - svArOchisha Manu iii) satyasEna - Uttama Manu iv) hari - tApasa Manu v) vaikunta - raivata Manu vi) ajita - chAkshusha Manu vii) vAmana - vaivasvata Manu viii) sArvabhauma - sAvarNi Manu ix) rushabha - dakshasAvarNi Manu x) vishvaksEna - brahma-sAvarNi Manu xi) dharmasetu - dharma-sAvarNi Manu xii) sudhAma - rRudra-sAvarNi Manu xiii) yOgeshvara - dEva-sAvarNi Manu xiv) bruhadbhanu - indra-sAvarNi Manu 4. The first manvantara is svAyambhu. 5. We are currently in vaivasvata manvantara Division of brahma dEvAs hagalu (1000 divya yugAs) among manvantarAs Since we have 14 manvantarAs, we need to divide 1000 divya yugAs with 14. => 1000 / 14 = 71 is Quotient & 6 is Remainder. 71 Divya Yugas = 71 * 43,20,000 = 30,67,20,000 MY & 6 Divya Yugas = 6 * 43,20,000 = 2,59,20,000 MY (Quotient) As we can see from above calculations, 1 manvantara is not exactly 71 divya yugAs or 30,67,20,000 MY, since we are left with a quotient of 6 divya yugAs or 2,59,20,000 MY. These 6 Divya yugas or 2,59,20,000 MY must be distributed among 14 Manvantaras. This is achieved the following way as explained by Sri Bannanje Govindacharyaru in his lectures on Srimad Bhagavatam. We divide 2,59,20,000 MY (quotient) into 14 portions of 18,50,000 MY. => 18,50,000 * 14 = 2,59,00,000 MY (20,000 MY short of 2,59,20,000 MY - We shall understand about remaining 20,000 MY within a short while) [Note : How did we arrive at the figure 18,50,000 MY is not explained by Sri Bannanje Acharyaru and I request learned scholars to throw some light on this. Sri Acharya simply says that we should make 14 portions of 18,50,000 MY] This means that the time period of each manvantara is 30,67,20,000 MY (71 Maha yugaas) + 18,50,000 MY = 30,85,70,000 MY After each manvantara, there is a manvantara pralaya for a short period of time and the 20,000 MY must be distributed among these manvantara pralayas. We must divide 20,000 MY into 13 portions, since, after the last manvantara there would be dina pralaya. This again leads to a problem as 20,000 MY cannot be divided into 13 equal portions. The solution is as follows: svAyambhu Manu (the first manu) is at a very higher level in Kaksha (10th kaksha - refer to tAratamya chart) and hence after this manvantara, the pralaya would be for 2000 MY. Now we are left with 18,000 MY which need to be divided among 12 manvantara pralayas. This is straight forward, i.e. all the other manvantara pralayas are for 1500 MY. A more detailed explanation of Brahma Devara Hagalu : As seen earlier, during 1 Day (Dina) of Brahma, there would be Srushti & Pralaya. Srushti starts with svAyambhuva manu which spans for 30,85,70,000. svAyambhuva 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 2,000 MY svArOchisha 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY uttama 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY tApasa 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY raivata 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY chAkshusha 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY vaivasvata 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY sAvarNi 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY dakshasAvarNi 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY brahmasAvarNi 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY dharmasAvarNi 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY rudrasAvarNi 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY dEvasAvarNi 30,85,70,000 MY Pralaya 1,500 MY indrasAvarNi 30,85,70,000 MY -------------------- Total 432,00,00,000 MY -------------------- After 432,00,00,000 MY, Dina Pralaya starts which also indicates brahma dEvAs rAtri (night). kAla vichAra of Sriman nArAyaNa ------------------------------- As already seen 1 day of brahma dEvA equals 864,00,00,000 MY (864 man years) => 30 days of Brahma Devaru equals 259,20,00,00,000 MY => 1 year of Brahma Devaru equals 311040,00,00,000 MY and => 100 years of Brahma Devaru equals 31104000,00,00,000 MY 100 years of Brahma Devaru is as if opening the eye lid for Sriman Naarayana. shrI jagannAtha dAsaru say this is only aupachArika, just to explain what it would mean to Sriman nArAyaNa AdimadhyAntagaLu illada | mAdhavagidupachAravendu ru | gAdivEdapurANagaLu pELuvuvu nithyadali | mOdamayanAnugrahava sam | pAdisi ramA brahma rudrEn | drAdigaLu tamma tamma padaviyanaidi sukhisuvaru || 62 || Some more points of interest ---------------------------- tApasa Manu is Almighty Himself svAyambhu Manu is at 10th Kaksha vaivasvata Manu is at 16th Kaksha & all the remaining 11 Manus are at 19th Kaksha (karmaja dEvathAs) --- Pl. excuse me for any mistakes. They are entirely mine and let me know of any corrections. bAlakana kalabhashe janani | kELi sukhabaduvante lakshmI | lOla bhaktharu mAduthiha samsthutige higguvanu | tALa tannavaralli mAdvava | hELanava heddaiva vidurana | Alayadi pAlundu kurupana mAnavane konda || [harikathAmrutasAra karuNAsandhi sandhi - 2 padya - 14] In Hari Guru Seva Prasanna Krishna ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2000 Report Share Posted January 24, 2000 Dear Fellow Madhvas and Keshava Rao, It was my intention to cool down and not further flames ... and I do hold Mr Keshava Tadipatri in high regard. He wrote: > " Keshava Tadipatri " <meerakesav > > " hatred " and " intolerance " . What shocked me most is Sri Kanekal's >remarks that also went into the same groove. In addition he remarked > [....# my earlier posting (SK) >>I do find it extremely disturbing that Vivekanda and other were >>regarded with what was tantamount to hatred. > .... (SK)] >Is there nothing in between " treating someone as God " and " hatred " ? It was not just me who felt this way. There was another posting - i have forgotten the author's name - which used these very words " hatred " . According to Mr. Nataraj's orignal posting ( and i quoting from memory here) he asked his sister to " throw away " Vivekanda's photo which to me seems like a visceral response. > >If " not treating someone as God " is tantamount to hatred, then I >must confess that I hate all my dearest friends as I do not deem >any of my dear friends as a deity. > >Let any one worship any god(s). What is wrong in giving Madhva >position and recommendation to those who want to follow the >Madhva sampradaya? How can statements like " show us some pramANa >from sadAgamAs and we will accept " be taken as intolerance? The The intolerance shows up in vehemence and the stridency of statements by some which i still hold to be tanatmount to an assault on Mr. Potti >real irony is that one who said " sorry " was labelled intolerant >and an extremist and the one who refused to apologize was >sympathized as a " hurt one " . More important is the fact that >this list is supposed to be " Vishvamadhvasangha " >and not " vishva Hindu cultural organization " or " Association >of religions of the world " . In the same context, regarding the True this is vishwa Madhva sangha but it must be borne in mind to the other religionists we are all hindu (devil worshippers to paraphrase the s.baptists) and therefore target of conversion...etc. It is to state the obvious that we are (in the US) living in alien culture. Our children are accosted by others (see an earlier posting by Balaji Hebbar) and they have to defend themselves. This and other such considerations should make us pause and use temperate and dispassionate language when addressing philosophical issues. Whatever happened to " ekam SAt ... " etc ? PLease do not construe this to mean that I am condoning anything and everything but just emphasize the " ultimate truth " is not easily graspable - really one cant do better than the orginal and repeat " Truth is one though the wise call it by different names " . Also to say that one has arrived at " the truth " immediately brings to an end - jijnyasa surely ? Since this issue, I have seen at least four persons wanting out of this list. That is no coincidence and the interests of madhva community are not best served by people leaving. Again I hasten to add that this is not to be construed to mean that we should water down the philosophical principles to not offend others. My own solution is to state our doctrine in as unambigiuous a fashion as possible and leave it at that. Again issues of faith and philosophy as far as possible may be kept separate. Thus is indeed posiible and earlier postings about sAkshi,Jijnyasa ... etc are proof of this. with best regards to one and all, Shri Kanekal ====================================================================== Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517 Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt Road Greenbelt, MD 20771 ====================================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2000 Report Share Posted January 24, 2000 On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:25:12 -0500 KANEKAL writes: [deleted] > > It was not just me who felt this way. There was another posting - i > have > forgotten the author's name - which used these very words " hatred " . > According > to Mr. Nataraj's orignal posting ( and i quoting from memory here) > he asked > his sister to " throw away " Vivekanda's photo which to me seems like > a visceral > response. ===================== [Nataraj] I understand your concerns. However, since we are probably looking at the issue from different viewpoints, it is not easy for us to agree with each other. When I was in highschool, when I didn't know anything about mAyavAda or TattvavAda, I also used to think of Vivekananda and Ramakrishna as great leaders. However, things changed once I started reading about mAyAvAda and tattvavAda. After reading some works of Srimad Acharya and Sri Vadiraja Theertha (such as Yukti mallika), I lost *all* respect for all those who preached mAyAvAda. Those who preach mAyAvAda kill people's sAkshi. There is no other way one can accept mAyAvAda. If you want to believe in mAyAvAda, you must first kill your sAkshi. Once you kill your sAkshi, you lose the ability to discern what is right and what is wrong, what is sense and what is nonsense. Also, a mAyAvAdin may preach mAyAvAda because of two reasons. 1. He believes completely in mAyAvAda (that he is non-different from Brahman) 2. He is just being faithful to his family tradition If someone believes in and preaches mAyAvAda because of the second reason, I would have some sympathy (and may be some respect) for him. However, in my opinion, Vivekananda and Ramakrishna had more of the former reason than the latter. Since I cannot go against my own sAkshi, I just can't show any respect for them. If you call that " hatred " , I really can't help it. Since many of you give more importance to Vivekananda's and Ramakrishna's contribution to the society, you probably find it easier to show resepct for them. Since I give more importance to their philosophy, I find it impossible to show any respect for them. If you all knew how absurd and how perverted mAyAvAda is, you would probably better understand my position. Let me give you this example (I think this one was given by Sri Vadiraja Theertha in Yuktimallika, but I am not sure). If two cows are fighting with each other, it is wrong and insane to end their fight by killing one of the cows. Because both cows are sacred, a sane person will bring some grass or other food and coax them to stop fighting. Similarly, when two vEda vAkya-s seem to contradict each other, it is wrong and insane to kill one of the vAkya-s to settle the issue. But a mAyAvAdin has no problem killing one of the vEda vAkya-s. He has no problem killing one of the cows to end the fight. How can you expect me to have reverence for such a person? Let me give another stronger example. It is not my intention to provoke you but I am forced to make you all understand my position How would you feel if someone were to say that your wife is his wife also? You would probably get so mad that you wouldn't mind stabbing him to death. Now, a mAyAvAdin doesn't stop with your or my wife, he is crazy enough to say that he is non-different from the Lord Himself and implies that Lord's consort is his consort too. In the end, he says that there is no such entity as Lord's consort anyway. There is no way I am going to show respect such an insane person. Hence, I had to ask my sister to get rid of those pictures. BTW, you don't have to agree with me on anything. I am just stating my position. You are all welcome to give me one good reason why I should let my sister hang their pictures next to pictures of Sri Raghavendra Theertha or Sri Hanumantha and show reverence to them also. I don't despise mAyAvAda because I happen to believe in mAdhwa sidhanta. I despise mAyAvAda because it is inherently absurd. Regards -Nataraj > > > with best regards to one and all, > Shri Kanekal > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2000 Report Share Posted January 25, 2000 Dear Nataraj, May I jsut quote two more shlokas of YukthiMallika of Sri Vadiraja here- " Ittham vichaaryamaane bhoodyasmanmaayaavinaam matham sarvam cha lokasammathyaa bhagavannindanaathmakam " - 19 " Atho maayaavaadamathaannamnaivaathijugupsithaath bheethoham abhajam thathvavaadinaameva paddhathim " - 20 Sri Davangerre Bhima Rao translates these shlokas as under : In this manner, when one examines the different concepts of the school of Mayamatha (Advaitha), it will be concluded that all these are in the nature of denunciation of the Supreme Being (due to hatred towards Him). Therefore, I am fearful of following the Advaitha doctrines and have accepted Thathvavada. How ever, One has to know and understand Advaitha and also understand why it results in hatred towards God to be a good Dvaitha devotee. This is also stated by Saint Vadiraja, " Anthe siddhasthu siddhanthah madhvasya aagama yeva hi " - Madhva Shasthra is the end result of examining all Poorvapakshas including Advaitha. NAPSRao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2000 Report Share Posted January 28, 2000 DearKeshava Rao, I agree with your last statement that taking the good of others is not making a conglemeration of religions. In fact even people of other religions would not agree with it. Similarly following the tenets of the philosophy of our Acharya and stating that his philosophy is alone the right one ,and/or following the practices of Madhvas which has come down during several centuries should not be branded as Madhva extremism. In no way does that affect anybody's tolerance of other religions. For example I lived in Secunderabad and had a good no. of muslims respect me though they knew very well that I am an orthodox brahmin. Coming to the worship of Ayyappa and other dieties or people like Satya aibaba, it is left to the individuals who do so . At the same time when it comes to discuss whether it is correct to do so for those who follow the Dvaita system,it has to be done keeping accepted authoritative works followed in the system. As persons who have some knowledge of the system, we have to come to a conclusion in this regard by looking into whether there a mention of a devata or an avatar of a devata by that name and if so the place of such diety in the gradation. To my knowledge,which I do agree is limited, there is no mention of the name 'Ayyappa' in the works treated as authority in the dvaita system. Similar is the case of 'Santoshima'. So ,it is my opinion that as a Vaishnava,following the path laid down by Sri Madhvacharya, I should not (or Madhvas should not) worship these gods(?). I suppose that this does not mean that I am not tolerant of other religions. In fact,it is difficult to worship daily all the devatas we know in the proper order. Possibly,keeping this in view,the tradition in Madhva families is limited to the worship of(apart from the Lord) ,only a few gods. they are :Sri Vayu in the form of Rama, Hanuman,Garuda, and Sesha. The worship of other deities is limited to stotras only. All such worship is also with the concept that they are 'parivara devatas'. I have written these views of mine now as Sri Vasu Murthy had mentioned that the discussions may continue after the tempers cool down and I hope things are back to normal With best wishes, Bannur.R Keshava Tadipatri <meerakesav wrote: " Keshava Tadipatri " <meerakesav I just want to elaborate on the beautiful comment made by HH Sri Sugunendra tiirtha: " One should act like a bee, which collects and stores the essence from different flowers, and makes its own special honey. " This great pontiff has made extra-ordinary service by touring all over U.S. and spreading the words of knowledge. It will be a gross injustice to misquote, misinterpret, or misrepresent the statements made by him. I felt an inspiration just being in his presence. The context and the place where he had to speak must be taken into account. Even his words about " worshipping Ayyappa " , he may have meant not to hurt Sri Potti's feelings. He would not have said that it is Madhva tradition to worship Ayyappa. Just to reiterate, to know what is honey and what is poison, one must have the guiding light of the able gurus of their sampradaya who know the facts. If one needed any clarification on his speech, one should ask the great pontiff only and not take the statement out in various forms. Ceratainly the swamijii would not have meant that just make a conglomerate of all religions and end up with a totally illogical product. Regards, Keshava Rao Please click above to support our sponsor nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH | karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA || " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are due to His recurring grace " If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases Vishnu. --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya Talk to your friends online with Messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2000 Report Share Posted January 28, 2000 namaskaara: myself and many others on this list would like to know various views and pramanas on this subject. for this very reason we have created a separate list " vms-philosophy " so that people not interested in free flowing philosophical discussions will not be 'disturbed'. i request our learned members to continue this thread on the new list and stop further postings on list. please let me know if any of you have problems accessing the vms-philosophy list. naaraayaNa smaraNam --- RAMACHANDRA RAO <bkrrao wrote: > RAMACHANDRA RAO <bkrrao > <<<DELETED>>> > I have written these views of mine now as Sri Vasu Murthy had mentioned > that the discussions may continue after the tempers cool down and I hope > things are back to normal With best wishes, > > Bannur.R Talk to your friends online with Messenger. http://im. 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.