Guest guest Posted January 24, 2000 Report Share Posted January 24, 2000 Professor Balaji Hebbar: Bravo! Spoken like a true professional! I commend your professional integrity as a professor, of course. You are " cool " ! Now permit me to interject a little background information regarding the Tulu brahmanas(madhwas) as I see it. Pottis, in general, hail from the former South Kanara District. Their ancestors moved to Kerala region and established primarily as archakas, priests, vedic scholars presume this could have been the introduction of Madhwas in Kerala, along the coast upto Kanyakumari. Even now the temple archakas there are Tulu brahmanas. They have been maintaining Tulu brahmana tradition as meticulously as they could, not only in Kerala but in United States too! For example, Dasan Potti is one of the earlier founders of the now prosperous Ganesh Temple of NY. We have seen his unselfish struggle to initiate " a Hindu Temple " in the early 70s. Anyway, in my opinion, any religious concepts as it being indoctrinated upon people will have to be modified to suit the local customs or preferences. In time it will be influenced by the local tradition and in this form it has a better chance of stabilizing. e.g. Bhutharadhana is the unique feature of South Kanara from time unknown. It is a very characteristic feature of that geographical area as the scholars have identified. There are numerous bhuthas of various stature that are being worshipped even to-day.(You may find a partial list in Gururaja Bhatt's monumental work " Studies of Tuluva History and Culture " and recently you may find some articles of the same in " Coastal Karnataka " booklet by Dr. Upadhyaya) Your " Annappa- Dharmasthala " example was an eye opener and a classic one. Elaborating the same concept, it is not an uncommon tradition that some brahmana families have an auxiliary trend of recognizing these bhuthas after the main diety pooja. Mostly they are kept outside the perimeter of the house and treated only as tertiary object. It all depends on the local importance and belief. I am not trying equate bhuta to Ayyappa! This is just an example how factors of local tradition will have to be amalgamated into a religion in order to be harmonious in the community. Professor Hebbar, do you think I opened a can worms? These things could be discussed on a personal basis rather than going into e-mail. Anyway please do not take it seriously. It is just a casual talk. Thank you for listening. With regards, Balakrishna Rao [ ] Saturday, January 22, 2000 5:33 AM Digest Number 265 ---- There are 7 messages in this issue. Topics in today's digest: 1. Raghavendra Rachuri AsifJah 2. Fwd: Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue Gopal Potti <gpotti 3. Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue Vasu Murthy <vmurthy 4. Re: Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue Balaji Hebbar <bhebbar 5. Re: Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue AsifJah 6. Re: Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue Balaji Hebbar <bhebbar 7. Some observations " Keshava Tadipatri " <meerakesav __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 1 Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:23:30 EST AsifJah Raghavendra Rachuri Krishna Bhaktas: Raghavendra Rachuri's decision is commendable, and should be followed by the rest of us, at least in terms of kindling a desire to gain the right knowledge. Those who are in alien lands find a compromise at every stage, until they are left with nothing of their own. It is a pity that I won't be able to meet him in person this weekend, but I want to take this opportunity to wish and hope that the very best in learning comes to him, easily and quickly, so that he may impart it to the rest of us. Arvind Acharya __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 2 Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:07:50 -0500 Gopal Potti <gpotti Fwd: Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue >AsifJah >Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:57:26 EST >Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue Let me refresh Sri AsifJah's memory: I have stated very clearly before by an email that I would not have made any comment if Mr. Prasanna Krishna had simply stated that Lord Ayyappa was not an avathara of any devatha and according to Madhva Philosohpy, Lord Ayyappa does not exist. But he went on making a statement that he strongly recommend that any madhva worshipping Lord Ayyappa should be stopped right now. That prompted me to send an email explaining why I believe in Lord Ayyappa. That is all. Being a krishnabakta, I cant not go to your level of making fun of people especially respected Sri Vasu Murthy. Dear Vasu, my position of leaving VMS is firm. Please remove my name by this weekend. My help will be always there since I am doing service to Lord SriKrishna. Dear Sri Ramachandra Rao, I will send you an email directly answering some of your questions at a later time regarding gradation and other things. For people who want to continue this thread, please direct all your enquiries to The Hindu Temple Socoety of North Ameria, Sri Maha Vallabha Ganapti Devastanam 45-57 Bowne Street Flushing, NY 11355 Tel. 718-460-8484 http://www.indianet.com/ganesh Whether it is a coincident or not, this week without my request, I received a 2000 calender by mail from NY Ganapthi Temple where in the month of June page, you will see a picture of Lord Vishnu as Mohini and Lord Shiva with sages. Now some of you can go after NY temple priests and Board of Trustees for coming up with a picture like that. Please note that there are a lot of learnt schalors associated wth that temple since I know them very well while I was in NY area during early 70s. Best regards to all, Gopal Krishna Potti __________________________ _ __________________________ ___ Message: 3 Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:42:23 -0500 Vasu Murthy <vmurthy Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue A __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 4 Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:03:35 -0400 Balaji Hebbar <bhebbar Re: Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue Dear shrI Acharya: You have pointed out that my thinking is flawed. No problem. I accept that. In my profession as a college professor in the humanities field, argumentations are part of the scenario. To use an amercanism " it comes with the territory " . I deal with my colleagues and my graduate students all the time who also feel the same way over other issues. My job as a teacher is to be patient and work and rework these things to clarify to the other party (to the best of my ability) what I am saying. It may or may not work. But that's OK! To clarify my previous analogies: 1. In the Dharmasthala narrative, I was making the aNNappa = ayyappa correlation. I wouldn't be surprised if these two are regional variations of one demi-god etc. Certainly, the names are similar and Dharmasthala (as the crow flies) is not all that far from Sabarimalai. Anyway, as an academic without further proof I will deem it to be just a personal conjecture on my part. I don't except you or anyone else to agree with that. And I fully understand. 2. In the GauDa-SArasvat narrative, I was making the correlation of the unorthodox fish-eating practice to the " unorthodox " Ayyappa worship practice. In both of these situations (aNNappa worship and fish-eating), the Mainline MAdhva tradition has tended to tolerate and look " the other way " at these. Perhaps (and only perhaps) such an allowance should be permitted in the Ayyappa worship as well. It certainly seems plausible. shrI Acharya, some us tend to be more sensitive than others. It is OK. Anyway, it only reinforces shrImadAcArya's philosophy that each jIva is unique as per its svabhAva. Let us give allowance for that. If someone feels sensitive about Ayyappa, just let it be. Many thanks to you for patiently reading my write-ups and responding to them. with kindest regards, B.N.Hebbar __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 5 Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:18:55 EST AsifJah Re: Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue > Dear shrI Acharya: > > You have pointed out that my thinking is flawed. No problem. > I accept that. In my profession as a college professor in the Prof. Hebbar: Please go back to read my e-mail that you are quoting. What I said is this: that Vasu's reference to your e-mail is flawed, because he implied that your observations of variance from the Madhva norm in some communities makes Ayyappa worship permissible. I did not say your arguments were flawed. You pointed out some facts, and I would not be foolish enough to dispute what is a fact. Now you clearly state that we should be making a similar concession to Ayyappa. That is a liberal viewpoint; while I can't agree with you, I cannot dispute your right to an opinion. I apologize to you if you felt offended by my earlier e-mail. It is not my intention to belittle you or your thinking. I note with great pride that you are the only professor I know who is equally skilled in taking a Western as well as Shastraic approach to Dvaita. Since you had copied the list as well as Shri Potti, I was forced to do so as well. Regards, Arvind __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 6 Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:43:54 -0400 Balaji Hebbar <bhebbar Re: Re: Ayyappa and demigod issue Dear shrI Acharya: In that case, the apology must come from me to you for having misread you. Not the other way around. I must be man enough to admit that in front of all. How can I ever be offended by a FRIEND? That is impossible. No matter what, your goodself, Vasu, shrI Gopal Potti and all others in this forum, I will continue to hold as my good friends in both the secular and the sacred. regards to all, Hari-vAyu smaraNa B.N.Hebbar __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Message: 7 Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:59:11 -0500 " Keshava Tadipatri " <meerakesav Some observations 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...
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.