Guest guest Posted May 31, 2003 Report Share Posted May 31, 2003 my 2 cents worth.. Sri Purandara Dasaru in his composition " Kande Kande Raajara " on Sri Vadirajara has quoted that " Landa Maygala Gundi Vadeyalu, Dhanda Maruti Padake Baruvara " .. Me being an alpa & Sri Dasaru being a Devamsha Sambhootaru, i will take his words for granted. i think the byline is not to argue on this if we do not have enough gnana or sthana (for me). Naham Kartah, Hari: Kartah.. HV --- panchamukhi wrote: > Namaskaras to aeveryone and Mr. Anand Manvi, > > I have nothing against Mr. Anand Manvi's personal > belief of accepting > everything what shri Satyatmateertha swamiji > believes. He has been > considered as a great scholar form one and all. > THe point i am trying to make here is not about > anyone persons belief but > the attitude of we Madhwas as a group. We have > always been trying to fight > amongst ourselves on issues such as which is the > moola matha , where is shri > moola rama devaru, whether Shri Vadiraja swamiji is > Bhavi sameeraru or not, > and so on and so forth. > According to me, these are not going to help us > upgrade our souls but only > satisfy our human nature of bickering and one > upmanship. Please correct me > if I am wrong. > I guess if we use the same argument strengths to > propogate our philosophy > worldwide, Shri Satyatmateertha swamiji and in turn > Shri Madhwacharyaru and > finally Shri Hari will be the happiest atmas around. > If we firmly believe in > Dwaita siddhanta, then these wordly issues of who is > who and what is what > should be ignored and pursuit of knowledge should be > given more stress. > Whether Shri Vadirajaru is a ruju guna or not may > not be the end objective > of all us Madhwas but supremacy of Shri Hari is. > All the saint-philosophers in this philosophy have > been trying to only prove > the greatness of Shri Hari and the difference > between him and us. > Since there is a lineage of following certain > taratamya based on of course > the earlier works of great saints, it is not going > to lead us anywhere if we > start questioning everything. > That is all I have to say and would like to end this > argument and continue > to read more meaningful postings on thsi wonderful > medium. > > Once again pardon me if i have wrongly hurt someones > feelings. My intention > has not been that at all. > > Regards to all. > Pavan Panchamukhi > > > > Anand Manvi [m_anand_rao] > Friday, May 30, 2003 3:33 PM > > Why fear all > contraversies? > > > Hi All, > > , > <panchamukhi@v...> wrote: > > We have had enough controversies over several > issues which in no > > way contribute to our understanding of Shri > Madhwacharya's > > philosophies. > It becomes a contraversy only if one or both the > parties hold on to > their point of view irrespective of whether or not > it's based in > Shastras. Hiding Shastric knowledge for fear of > 'contraversy' is not > always a benificial in the long run. Parties > involved may need to sit > and have Shastric-vada and prove their(disprove > other's) points, > rather than trying to evole 'consensus'. > This forum may very well ban such discussions as > most of us(not me > atleast) do not have the panditya/yogyata to make a > point. > > The way Sri Madhva, who is infinitely alpa compared > to Sri Hari, > could prove that Sri Hari is sarvottma - a person > who is much alpa > compared to Sri Vadirajaru may be able to (dis)prove > Rujutva of Sri > vadirajaru, pureley on the basis sat-Shastra. > > For those who question 'What is the use of knowing > whether or not Sri > Vadirajaru is Ruju or not?', I've a counter question > 'What is the use > of knowing whether or not Sri Hari is sarvottama?'. > > Like some acharya noted in Sri Sudha magazine, > wrong-knowledge is > worse than no-knowledge. Wrong knowledge in this > particualr instance > will affect the Taratamya and hence may lead us to > andhanTamas > instead of Vaikuntha. > > Personally, I've accepted Sri Sri 1008 > Satyatmateertha Swamiji as my > swaroopa uddharaka guru and it's only through him > that I can get > sadgati, and whatever is his sat-shastric > interpretation is for me > too. > > Krishnam Vande Jagadgurum, > > Anand > > > > 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 > -- > To send an empty E-mail (without subject > and body info.) to > - > -- > Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.org > View the latest events in the US by selecting the > 'Events' link > -- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2003 Report Share Posted June 1, 2003 Dear friends, While I endorse the view that our society which is tiny from the standards of other communities should not be subjected to the stress of factional disputes on issues of very little day to day purport, there is still a basic need to be able to look at such issues objectively and debate them fairly - not sweep them under the carpet, out of sight. There are issues of far greater significance staring us in the face. For instance, the sincere efforts made by Sri Vidyamanya Tirtha during the last few years of his life to achieve some unanimity about all Madhvas observing Yekadashi on one day - met with total non-cooperation and attitude of self-righteousness by some of the mathadhipathis and their advisers, who accept only one position as right in a debate - their own!. Just to give examples of such issues - the question of Jayatirtha Vrindavana in Hampi, the identity of Sri Vyasaraja and Sri Raghavendra, the belief that all ascetics of Utharadi Matha must be incarnations of various gods etc. There is one basic problem amongst our scholars - they do not seem to accept the veracity of records from Dasa sahithya - even from admittedly great Aparoksha jnanis like Purandara dasaru, Vijaya dasaru etc. I have heard personally a revered scholar in Bombay (he is no more now) talking about the non-identity of Sri Vyasaraja and Sri Raghavendra, on the grounds of the wide disparity in levels of scholarship exhibited in their works. I will no more accept his conclusion now as I did then, as I believe that the Devranamas of Vijaya dasaru, Gopala dasaru etc. are Pramana enough. Even if one were to concede the basis of difference in scholarship, nothing stops the same soul from performing more than one role in guiding less endowed creatures like us. Thus, when one argues against the Rju status of Sri Vadiraja, they really mean that they have found nothing in Sanskrit which says it which is acceptable to them, being mostly unacquainted with Kannada compositions. It was really amusing to see the argument that one of Vijaya Dasa compositions apparently lowered the status of Sri Vadiraja. The great Puranadara dasaru himself - said " Eesumunigaliddu yenu maadidaru, Vyasamuni Madhvamathavannuddhardia " - surely he was aware of the work done by Sri Teekacharya etc. before. Also, one can not accept one composition of Sri Vijayadasaru as Pramana for making a point and reject another. The fact that Sri Jagannathadasaru, who was a very great scholar in his day - his Harikathamruthasara is still considered by almost all as a reference work on Tatvavada, himself accepted with great humility his tutelage under Sri Vijayadasaru and Gopaladasaru, should be adequate for all time to come to show that Dasa sahithya also has the same Aaptha Vakyathva as those by great ascetics composed in Sanskrit. While I endorse that we should not bring personalities of either mathadhipathies or even scholars or laymen into the discussion, we should not be afraid to debate the issues openly, fairly and freely. How ever, if we are asked to accept the verdict of a person on the grounds that he is an Aaptha on any issue, we will have to see the pramanas BOTH IN SANSKRIT AND IN KANNADA, before accepting it. In any case, the use of offensive, strong arm tactics against the followers of any particular faith shows inner weakness and not strength. NAPSRao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2003 Report Share Posted June 2, 2003 Dear KrishNabhaktas, There has been an interesting discussion on the issue of rujutva of Sri vAdirAja swamiji. Sri Bindu and I were talking to a pre-eminent mAdhva scholar sometime ago about this issue. His view on this issue was that this issue should be left to the faith of the devotees. If some people want to accept rujutva of Sri vAdirAja swamiji that is fine. If some others don’ t want to accept it, that is fine too. Each side should respect the opinion and faith of the other side. In my view, this is a good way to resolve this issue. It looks like two sides have different views and are not going to convince the other side. It is unfortunate that we have this controversy. Given the fact that it is there, is better to accept the views of the other side and let them have their views. What is harmful to the mAdhva society and to this forum is the heated discussion that unnecessarily smears the reputation of esteemed swamijis and people on either side of the controversy. Several people have complained to me about the tone of the discussions and random accusations thrown against the other side. I request all the parties to cool down and respect the swamijis and people on the other side of the argument. I also suggest that unless there is new information to shared, that we close down this discussion. At this point, no new light is being thrown on this issue, only unnecessary heat is being generated. I know that this is an emotional issue, but we should still maintain the dignity and decorum of this forum. Writing negative emotional remarks about any swamiji is discouraged in this forum. Swamijis are spiritually advanced people due to their sAdhana compared to most lay people. It is not appropriate to write negative emotional remarks about them even if we disagree with them. I also suggest that if further discussions need to take place, they move to the vms-philosophy list using the guidelines mentioned above. Let us all make use of this forum to enlighten each other and help each other in our sAdhanas and path to liberation. bAgillali biddiha bhajakanu nAnu.. Namaste, Vasu Murthy Moderator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2003 Report Share Posted June 2, 2003 Dear Vaishnava Bandhus, Huble pranaamaas to all of you. This view is fully accepted and respected. " Apart from Guru Madhva no Madhva Yatis or Dasas claimed themselves about their avatar/moola roopa. There is no doubt about GURU MADHVA’s jeevottama position. No deep study of origin of yatis, miracles performed by them are required. But their SADHANA and JNANA GANGAs are to be respected by study, understanding in real sense and implementing in real life. " This is the opinion given by a Great Madhva scholar who devoted his life for spreading Madhva philosophy, visited even foreign countries for this purpose. I think message is very clear and let us try to implement it. My namanas to all respected Madhvas struggling to understand this great philosophy among whom I am the Kanista. We may go wrong way by the influence of Kali. But Guru Madhva (BHEMA) only can save us from his hands. Let us pray for that. Narayana Rao. Doha,Qatar. - Shashi and Vasu Murthy <v.murthy Monday, June 2, 2003 6:20 am Re: Why fear all controversies? > Dear KrishNabhaktas, > There has been an interesting discussion on the issue > of rujutva > of Sri vAdirAja swamiji. Sri Bindu and I were talking to a pre- eminent > mAdhva scholar sometime ago about this issue. His view on this > issue was > that this issue should be left to the faith of the devotees. If some > people want to accept rujutva of Sri vAdirAja swamiji that is fine. > If some others don & #146; t want to accept it, that is fine too. Each > side should > respect the opinion and faith of the other side. In my view, > this is a > good way to resolve this issue. > > It looks like two sides have different views and are not going to > convincethe other side. It is unfortunate that we have this > controversy. Given the > fact that it is there, is better to accept the views of the other > side and > let them have their views. > > What is harmful to the mAdhva society and to this forum is the heated > discussion that unnecessarily smears the reputation of esteemed > swamijis and > people on either side of the controversy. Several people have > complained to > me about the tone of the discussions and random accusations thrown > againstthe other side. I request all the parties to cool down and > respect the > swamijis and people on the other side of the argument. I also > suggest that > unless there is new information to shared, that we close down this > discussion. At this point, no new light is being thrown on this > issue, only > unnecessary heat is being generated. > > I know that this is an emotional issue, but we should still > maintain the > dignity and decorum of this forum. Writing negative emotional > remarks about > any swamiji is discouraged in this forum. Swamijis are spiritually > advancedpeople due to their sAdhana compared to most lay people. > It is not > appropriate to write negative emotional remarks about them even if we > disagree with them. > > I also suggest that if further discussions need to take place, > they move > to the vms-philosophy list using the guidelines > mentionedabove. > > Let us all make use of this forum to enlighten each other and > help each > other in our sAdhanas and path to liberation. > > bAgillali biddiha bhajakanu nAnu.. > > Namaste, > Vasu Murthy > Moderator > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2003 Report Share Posted June 3, 2003 Dear All, As always, people have tried to pull strings in all possible directions. I did not think that this is the right forum to debate Rujutva of Sri Vadirajaru. Those proposing for and against this must sit and decide. Some people trying to prove their Sanskrit/Kannada knowledge on thgis forum, infront of not-so-knowledgable souls like me, will onbly increase their ego and nothing else. And to dear Madusudhan Bheemsen Rao, this will be the last time you'll ever advise me on choosing my Guru. And you while talking so much about Madhva tradition, did sound more fanatic than anyone else here, atleast. As for your abusive language against Uttaradi Matha and Sri 1008 Satyatma Teertharu, I can only request you not to let you tongue loose against a great Yati and incur the wrath of Sri hari Vayu Gurugalu. If someone thinks they've the proof for or against Sri Vadirajaru's Rujutva, better way to tackle would probably to follow the tradition and sit and debate dispassionately. If someone is not clear then they should realize that not accepting Rujutva, on the basis of Pranamas, does not mean disrespecting that great Yati. That is not true atleast with Sri 1008 Satyatma Teertharu. Swamiji during his Bhagavata Saptaha, which concluded recently in Bangalore, would bow too all these great Madhva Yatis (including of course Sri Vadirajaru) before staring each day. Coming to the Vayu-amshatva, the way I understand is that - inorder to do the pooja of Sri Moola Rama devaru one needs to have Vayu-amsha. That explains the claim to me, I'm not debating it. Finally, my point is that top scholors on both are dispassionate about the issue and let's try to be so. My point was that let's not avoid something 'just' because it seems to be becoming a contraversy. Sri Moola Digvijaya Ramo Vijayathe, Krishnam Vande Jagad Gurum, Sri Satyatma Teertha Gurughyo Namah, Anand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2003 Report Share Posted June 3, 2003 Namaskaras to all I guess this is going beyond control and the ugly face of the madhwas has again come to the fore. Most of the controversies in the madhwa faith if you all observe has always involved the uttaradimutt. Either they are targetted or they start it - is something i dont want to discuss here. I only would like to pray and request all of you that the argument of ruju status of shri vadirajaru is something not too important when it comes to more important issues of keeping the faith of dualism itself alive. Just when Dvaita siddhanta is coming up and getting a little bit of exposure, we have this new controversy. Mr. Anand Manvi, there is definitely no need to fear controversies but there is a need to resolve such issues ina proper forum. And as far as i am concerned, i dont think Shri Madhusudhan Bheemsen Rao was abusive towards Shri Satyatmateertharu. I respect Shree 1008 satyatmateertharu as much as you do if not more. I consider him myself as a great leader and a person with lot of future in mind. I am sure he will not want to discuss such issues in public himself. Kindly stop all this and concentrate on the religious scriptures to elevate ourselves in this short period of life. Regards to all Anand Manvi [m_anand_rao] Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:51 PM Re: Why fear all controversies? Dear All, As always, people have tried to pull strings in all possible directions. I did not think that this is the right forum to debate Rujutva of Sri Vadirajaru. Those proposing for and against this must sit and decide. Some people trying to prove their Sanskrit/Kannada knowledge on thgis forum, infront of not-so-knowledgable souls like me, will onbly increase their ego and nothing else. And to dear Madusudhan Bheemsen Rao, this will be the last time you'll ever advise me on choosing my Guru. And you while talking so much about Madhva tradition, did sound more fanatic than anyone else here, atleast. As for your abusive language against Uttaradi Matha and Sri 1008 Satyatma Teertharu, I can only request you not to let you tongue loose against a great Yati and incur the wrath of Sri hari Vayu Gurugalu. If someone thinks they've the proof for or against Sri Vadirajaru's Rujutva, better way to tackle would probably to follow the tradition and sit and debate dispassionately. If someone is not clear then they should realize that not accepting Rujutva, on the basis of Pranamas, does not mean disrespecting that great Yati. That is not true atleast with Sri 1008 Satyatma Teertharu. Swamiji during his Bhagavata Saptaha, which concluded recently in Bangalore, would bow too all these great Madhva Yatis (including of course Sri Vadirajaru) before staring each day. Coming to the Vayu-amshatva, the way I understand is that - inorder to do the pooja of Sri Moola Rama devaru one needs to have Vayu-amsha. That explains the claim to me, I'm not debating it. Finally, my point is that top scholors on both are dispassionate about the issue and let's try to be so. My point was that let's not avoid something 'just' because it seems to be becoming a contraversy. Sri Moola Digvijaya Ramo Vijayathe, Krishnam Vande Jagad Gurum, Sri Satyatma Teertha Gurughyo Namah, Anand 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 -- To send an empty E-mail (without subject and body info.) to - -- Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.org View the latest events in the US by selecting the 'Events' link -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2003 Report Share Posted June 3, 2003 Dear All, , panchamukhi@v... wrote: > Most of the controversies in the madhwa faith if you all observe > has always involved the uttaradimutt. Either they are targetted > or they start it - is something i dont want to discuss here. I'm sure this is some hidden bias coming to fore. > Mr. Anand Manvi, there is definitely no need to fear controversies > but there is a need to resolve such issues ina proper forum. Read what I said " I did not think that this is the right forum to debate Rujutva of Sri Vadirajaru. Those proposing for and against this must sit and decide. " Hari Sarvottama, Vayu Jeevottama, Sri Digvijaya Molla Ramo Vijayathe, Sri Satyatma Teertha Gurubhyo Namah, Anand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 Anand Manvi [m_anand_rao]Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:21 AM Subject: Re: Why fear all controversies? This is my last reply for this thread. And to dear Madusudhan Bheemsen Rao, this will be the last time you'll ever advise me on choosing my Guru. I never advised you .I criticised you for spreading your ignorance in this list without knowing intricacies of Shastra. Often People tend to quote Sri Purandaradasa's "Guruvina GulamanAguva tanaka" forgetting last linenAradavarada varada purandara vittalana sErikondavana tA padeyuva tanakaThis last line itself gives charecteristics of a SvarUpaUddAraka Guru. As regards to my criticisms on Sri Sathyathma tIrtha Swamiji: I personally have nothing against His Holiness or Uttaradhi Matha.I don't talk or write out of my hat.I have provided enough evidences from Uttaradhi Matha Website.My reactions are only issue based. I have high regards towards all Peethadhi pathis as long as they preach Sri Madhacharya's ,Hairdasa's Vakyas in the right spirit and lead us in the right direction.and If you fail to disect and seperate issue and regards/respect, it is your problem and not mine.I follow, "Vastu nishtE and not Vyakti niShte". As regards to Vayu-Amsha: Recently I was discussing Amsha issue with my friend Shrisha Rao(Dvaita.Org) he made following observations.I am just sharing for the benefit of readers.__________"It is settled siddhAnta that Vayu has no aMsha-s. The aMsha-amshI-bhAva applies jIva-s like Ashvatthama/Rudra and Arjuna/Indra where the aMsha (e.g., Arjuna) does not experience the joys of the aMshI (Indra), and the latter does not experience the suffering of the former (for instance, Indra was not at all bothered with the grief Arjuna felt at Abhimanyu's death). The aMsha and aMshI may even oppose each other, e.g., when Arjuna and Indra went to war over the khANDava forest.Vayu energizes all beings and in some cases especially so; e.g., his presence in Duryodhana gave the latter the strength of 10,000 elephants; also see the vighneshvara-stotra-sandhi of the HKAS, where Vinayaka is described as `prANAveshayuta-prakhyAta-prabhu', meaning that the `khyAti' of that deity comes from the Avesha of Vayu. (We of course may also infer that this same Avesha is also responsible for Vinayaka's achievements such as `vyAsakR^ita-granthagaLanaritu prayAsavillade-baredu vistarisideyO lOkadoLu'.)However, with regard to Vayu himself, it is the case that there is never any diminution in knowledge or other qualities, and thus, as Srimad Acharya puts it, `baT.h tad.h darshataM itthaM *eva* nihitam.h' (the qualities cited are of course as given in the RV, `baT.h itthA tad.h vapushhe adhAyi darshatam.h', & c.). There is no occasion for any aMsha-aMshI-bhAva, and no aMsha of Vayu is possible -- Vayu always incarnates only in forms that are as powerful as his Root-Form (e.g., all his avatAra-s are `chiranjIvi'-s)" _____ And you while talking so much about Madhva tradition, did sound more fanatic than anyone else here, atleast. Thanks; Yes I am a fanatic person about Madhva sidhdhantha.and I donot tolerate any nonsense. As regards to Rujutva:Lack of Pramanas in Sanskrit, is only the reason for Anti-Rujutva,gramthas quoted by Sri Madhacharya in Sarvamulas like Brahma Tarka are not availabletoday.So apply same principle of Anti-Rujutva and reject complete Madhva Sidhdhantha. Kannada/Sanskrit:Aparoxa jnani Haridasas revealed devata rahasya only to enhance Bhakti about our Saints to common people.and that is the basis of belief.IN the bestinterest, no body should dare to cross boundaries to question AparOxa jnanis VAkhyas .If that is questioned or hit with Poorvagraha, then a pertinentquestion will arise in the minds of devoted Madhvas as what is left for us to respect or regard these preachers of anti-Rujutva???Lastly, I was very happy to sing with Madhvas belonging to various Mathas from all over US ------"Kande Kande Rajara" song by Nijapurandara Vittala daaruon Sri Vadirajaru during recently held Mettilotsava at Pitsburgh.Let us follow with Shradda and Bhakti:KANDAVARA MATHU NoT KANDA KANDAVARA MATHU.I take this opportunity to thank Dr.Sreenivasa Havanur, Sri NAPS Rao, Sri Gopala Krishna Varna for sharing wonderful thoughts on this subject. I also thank members, who have communicated to me privately on this subject. I quote last few lines from Vijaya Kavacha.mandamatigaLu ivara chendavariyadeninde mAdalu bavada bhanda tappadu.indirApati ivara munde kunivanuanda vachanava nijake tandu tOrpanusateyidallavO vyAsavittala ballanupaTisabahudidhu kELi kutilarahiTaruNamaskaragaLuMadhusudan Bheemasenarao 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 --To send an empty E-mail (without subject and body info.) to - --Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.orgView the latest events in the US by selecting the 'Events' link-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 Dear All, , " Madhusudan Bheemasenarao " > I never advised you .I criticised you for spreading your ignorance > in this list without knowing intricacies of Shastra. How about you spreading nonsense on this very list? > I have high regards towards all Peethadhi pathis as long as they > preach Sri Madhacharya's ,Hairdasa's Vakyas in the right spirit and > lead us in the right direction. And who'll decide whether they 'leadins us in right direction or not', you? or each individual jIva? Well, I, for one, will not let you make decision for me. As for me, I've made my decision. > and If you fail to disect and seperate issue and regards/respect, > it is your problem and not mine. If you think so, live with it. > I follow, " Vastu nishtE and not Vyakti niShte " . I can see ego speaking here. > " It is settled siddhAnta that Vayu has no aMsha-s. " How about claims that Sri Raghavendra Teertharu has vayu-amsha? > Thanks; Yes I am a fanatic person about Madhva sidhdhantha.and I > donot tolerate any nonsense. And why do you think others will tolerate your nonsense? > Lack of Pramanas in Sanskrit, is only the reason for Anti- > Rujutva, If you think you've the yogyata, why don't you debate with pandits proposing otherwise? > question will arise in the minds of devoted Madhvas as what is left > for us to respect or regard these preachers of anti-Rujutva??? Again you seem to be in hurry to judge 'on-behalf' of all Madhvas? Who you think gave you that right? > Lastly, I was very happy to sing with Madhvas belonging to various > Mathas from all over US ------ " Kande Kande Rajara " song by > Nijapurandara Vittala daaru on Sri Vadirajaru during recently held > Mettilotsava at Pitsburgh. So what are you suggesting, a split? Hari Sarvottama, vayu Jeevottama, Sri Digvijaya Moola Ramo Vijayathe, Krishnam Vande Jagat Gurum, Sri Satytma Teertha Gurubhyo Namah, Anand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 Anand Manvi [m_anand_rao]Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:54 AM Subject: Re: Why fear all controversies? Dear All, , "Madhusudan Bheemasenarao" > I never advised you .I criticised you for spreading your ignorance> in this list without knowing intricacies of Shastra.How about you spreading nonsense on this very list? -----------I hv been a member from inception. and as such there is no value addition mail from you to this list.That itself is proof that you know nothing. > I have high regards towards all Peethadhi pathis as long as they> preach Sri Madhacharya's ,Hairdasa's Vakyas in the right spirit and> lead us in the right direction.And who'll decide whether they 'leadins us in right direction or not', you? or each individual jIva? Well, I, for one, will not let you make decision for me. As for me, I've made my decision. People with little commonsense can understand?? Ofcourse you will NOt !! Great you are independent of Sri Hari.!! Who cares your decision?? Matha-fanatics like you are akin to fans of cinema actress Kushbu fans assocication who built temple for her in Tamilnadu.> and If you fail to disect and seperate issue and regards/respect,> it is your problem and not mine.If you think so, live with it.> I follow, "Vastu nishtE and not Vyakti niShte".I can see ego speaking here. Definitely. > "It is settled siddhAnta that Vayu has no aMsha-s."How about claims that Sri Raghavendra Teertharu has vayu-amsha? After Sri Vadiraja-Sri Raghavendra. G reat you UM folks for getting ready for another innings. > Thanks; Yes I am a fanatic person about Madhva sidhdhantha.and I> donot tolerate any nonsense.And why do you think others will tolerate your nonsense? My nonsense is better than Vayu-Amsha nonsense and far far better than yur nonsense. > Lack of Pramanas in Sanskrit, is only the reason for Anti-> Rujutva,If you think you've the yogyata, why don't you debate with pandits proposing otherwise? Accepted. Send them to America!!! Pundits like Mahuli Acharyas can only fool around with guys like you. > question will arise in the minds of devoted Madhvas as what is left> for us to respect or regard these preachers of anti-Rujutva???Again you seem to be in hurry to judge 'on-behalf' of all Madhvas?Who you think gave you that right? Same people W ho gave UM pontiff right to speak on Svarupa of Vadiraja. > Lastly, I was very happy to sing with Madhvas belonging to various> Mathas from all over US ------"Kande Kande Rajara" song by> Nijapurandara Vittala daaru on Sri Vadirajaru during recently held> Mettilotsava at Pitsburgh.So what are you suggesting, a split? There is already split with people like you one side and people with jnana Bhakti on other side. Sri MadhvachArya GurubyO namaH. Hari Sarvottama, vayu Jeevottama,Sri Digvijaya Moola Ramo Vijayathe,Krishnam Vande Jagat Gurum,Sri Satytma Teertha Gurubhyo Namah,AnandnAham 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 --To send an empty E-mail (without subject and body info.) to - --Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.orgView the latest events in the US by selecting the 'Events' link-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 Dear All, , " Madhusudan Bheemasenarao " <mbrao@t...> wrote: > I hv been a member from inception. So you think just a longer association makes you more eligible? Ha. > Great you are independent of Sri Hari.!! You seem to have crossed the limits of misunderstanding or you're trying to impose your personal feelings on me? > Who cares your decision?? And who cares your decision. By the way, I mentioned that I made the decion, which for normal human beings means that 'I made it for myseelf'. > Matha-fanatics like you are akin to fans of cinema actress Kushbu > fans assocication who built temple for her in Tamilnadu. And you're like that mentally-ill person from Kerala who claimed to be Kalki Bhgavan and was aptly jailed. Take care! > After Sri Vadiraja-Sri Raghavendra. Again misunderstanding and trying to exploit it. > G reat you UM folks for getting ready for another innings. Here, I think you've crossed the limits. > My nonsense is better Just because an idiot like you thinks it's better does not become better. > Accepted. Send them to America!!! Onus is on you, provided you think you're capable. > Pundits like Mahuli Acharyas can only fool around with guys like > you. Probably true, these acharyas can't fool around with already-fools like you. > Same people W ho gave UM pontiff right to speak on Svarupa of > Vadiraja. I doubt if Swamiji is speaking 'on-behalf' of all Madhvas. He's expressed his understanding based on pranamas. On the other hand you kept writing 'all madhvas' for every (mis)opinion you expressed. > There is already split with people like you one side and people > with jnana Bhakti on other side. You mean self-proclaimed and self-righteous rascals like you on one side and the rest on the other side? Cut it! Hari Sarvottama, vayu Jeevottama, Sri Digvijaya Moola Ramo Vijayathe, Krishnam Vande Jagat Gurum, Sri Satytma Teertha Gurubhyo Namah, Anand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 how nasty can u get ? --- Anand Manvi <m_anand_rao wrote: > Dear All, > > , > " Madhusudan Bheemasenarao " > <mbrao@t...> wrote: > > I hv been a member from inception. > So you think just a longer association makes you > more eligible? Ha. > > > Great you are independent of Sri Hari.!! > You seem to have crossed the limits of > misunderstanding or you're > trying to impose your personal feelings on me? > > > Who cares your decision?? > And who cares your decision. By the way, I mentioned > that I made the > decion, which for normal human beings means that 'I > made it for > myseelf'. > > > Matha-fanatics like you are akin to fans of > cinema actress Kushbu > > fans assocication who built temple for her in > Tamilnadu. > And you're like that mentally-ill person from Kerala > who claimed to > be Kalki Bhgavan and was aptly jailed. Take care! > > > After Sri Vadiraja-Sri Raghavendra. > Again misunderstanding and trying to exploit it. > > > G reat you UM folks for getting ready for another > innings. > Here, I think you've crossed the limits. > > > My nonsense is better > Just because an idiot like you thinks it's better > does not become > better. > > > Accepted. Send them to America!!! > Onus is on you, provided you think you're capable. > > > Pundits like Mahuli Acharyas can only fool around > with guys like > > you. > Probably true, these acharyas can't fool around with > already-fools > like you. > > > Same people W ho gave UM pontiff right to speak > on Svarupa of > > Vadiraja. > I doubt if Swamiji is speaking 'on-behalf' of all > Madhvas. He's > expressed his understanding based on pranamas. > On the other hand you kept writing 'all madhvas' for > every > (mis)opinion you expressed. > > > There is already split with people like you one > side and people > > with jnana Bhakti on other side. > You mean self-proclaimed and self-righteous rascals > like you on one > side and the rest on the other side? Cut it! > > Hari Sarvottama, vayu Jeevottama, > Sri Digvijaya Moola Ramo Vijayathe, > Krishnam Vande Jagat Gurum, > Sri Satytma Teertha Gurubhyo Namah, > > Anand > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 Dear Haribhaktas, It is very very sad to read the below mails and we will be a laughing talk if any outsider reads all this. Ultimately what we are going to achieve by doing this. Though I am nothing in this world, have become a member to this group having an intention of learning something by going through the mails. Please, I request concerned people to stop continuing such talks and let's concentrate on important things listed out in our philosophy. I fully agree with Raveendra who had sent a mail mentioning that we should start bringing madhvas together in cooperation, making them to follow Madhva philosophy. Let us all concentrate in educating people(who are not practising right now) to start Sandhyavandane, Devara Pooje, doing Ekadashi, going to Patha Pravachana etc........by getting into this, people will have clear maturity in understanding the issues. I am not blaming anybody here. What I mean is that we can come forward learn something and be a part of great community in this world. I am not in favour of anybody here and do not want to getinto any kind of controversies, please. I am not thinking great myself to write like this, please understand that I have written this keeping in view of our community into consideration. Vandanegalu, Gururaja. --- Anand Manvi <m_anand_rao wrote: > Dear All, > > , > " Madhusudan Bheemasenarao " > <mbrao@t...> wrote: > > I hv been a member from inception. > So you think just a longer association makes you > more eligible? Ha. > > > Great you are independent of Sri Hari.!! > You seem to have crossed the limits of > misunderstanding or you're > trying to impose your personal feelings on me? > > > Who cares your decision?? > And who cares your decision. By the way, I mentioned > that I made the > decion, which for normal human beings means that 'I > made it for > myseelf'. > > > Matha-fanatics like you are akin to fans of > cinema actress Kushbu > > fans assocication who built temple for her in > Tamilnadu. > And you're like that mentally-ill person from Kerala > who claimed to > be Kalki Bhgavan and was aptly jailed. Take care! > > > After Sri Vadiraja-Sri Raghavendra. > Again misunderstanding and trying to exploit it. > > > G reat you UM folks for getting ready for another > innings. > Here, I think you've crossed the limits. > > > My nonsense is better > Just because an idiot like you thinks it's better > does not become > better. > > > Accepted. Send them to America!!! > Onus is on you, provided you think you're capable. > > > Pundits like Mahuli Acharyas can only fool around > with guys like > > you. > Probably true, these acharyas can't fool around with > already-fools > like you. > > > Same people W ho gave UM pontiff right to speak > on Svarupa of > > Vadiraja. > I doubt if Swamiji is speaking 'on-behalf' of all > Madhvas. He's > expressed his understanding based on pranamas. > On the other hand you kept writing 'all madhvas' for > every > (mis)opinion you expressed. > > > There is already split with people like you one > side and people > > with jnana Bhakti on other side. > You mean self-proclaimed and self-righteous rascals > like you on one > side and the rest on the other side? Cut it! > > Hari Sarvottama, vayu Jeevottama, > Sri Digvijaya Moola Ramo Vijayathe, > Krishnam Vande Jagat Gurum, > Sri Satytma Teertha Gurubhyo Namah, > > Anand > > Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook. http://calendar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 Very nice of everyone involved here to use this group for this type of discussion. Let's all stop discussing Madhwa philophies and activities and let's only clash like little kids. How about adding some profanity into the mix? Few months ago one individual posted a job requirement with the sole intention of helping the fellow Madhwas in need and got snubbed saying this group should only be used for promoting Madhwa philosophy. Where do we stand today? All of us need to take responsibility for allowing this to grow. I don't want to point finger at any single individual. Hari Bhaktas, have you even thought about other people who are in this forum who could be disappointed with this kind of fights? Let's create one more group and keep it exclusively for discussions/debates instead of pulling everyone into this kind of controversies. Let the members who do not wish to be part of that group can keep themselves away from these types of hostilities. Or, keep these types of debates among yourselves and not bring in to this forum. If you have any problems with what I said, please write to me directly and please DO NOT reply to the forum. My 2 cents, Praveen --- Anand Manvi <m_anand_rao wrote: > Dear All, > > , > " Madhusudan Bheemasenarao " > > I never advised you .I criticised you for > spreading your ignorance > > in this list without knowing intricacies of > Shastra. > How about you spreading nonsense on this very list? > > > I have high regards towards all Peethadhi pathis > as long as they > > preach Sri Madhacharya's ,Hairdasa's Vakyas in the > right spirit and > > lead us in the right direction. > And who'll decide whether they 'leadins us in right > direction or > not', you? or each individual jIva? Well, I, for > one, will not let > you make decision for me. As for me, I've made my > decision. > > > and If you fail to disect and seperate issue and > regards/respect, > > it is your problem and not mine. > If you think so, live with it. > > > I follow, " Vastu nishtE and not Vyakti niShte " . > I can see ego speaking here. > > > " It is settled siddhAnta that Vayu has no > aMsha-s. " > How about claims that Sri Raghavendra Teertharu has > vayu-amsha? > > > Thanks; Yes I am a fanatic person about Madhva > sidhdhantha.and I > > donot tolerate any nonsense. > And why do you think others will tolerate your > nonsense? > > > Lack of Pramanas in Sanskrit, is only the reason > for Anti- > > Rujutva, > If you think you've the yogyata, why don't you > debate with pandits > proposing otherwise? > > > question will arise in the minds of devoted > Madhvas as what is left > > for us to respect or regard these preachers of > anti-Rujutva??? > Again you seem to be in hurry to judge 'on-behalf' > of all Madhvas? > Who you think gave you that right? > > > Lastly, I was very happy to sing with Madhvas > belonging to various > > Mathas from all over US ------ " Kande Kande Rajara " > song by > > Nijapurandara Vittala daaru on Sri Vadirajaru > during recently held > > Mettilotsava at Pitsburgh. > So what are you suggesting, a split? > > Hari Sarvottama, vayu Jeevottama, > Sri Digvijaya Moola Ramo Vijayathe, > Krishnam Vande Jagat Gurum, > Sri Satytma Teertha Gurubhyo Namah, > > Anand > > > Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook. http://calendar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 , Gururaja Upendra > Dear Haribhaktas, > It is very very sad to read the below mails and we > will be a laughing talk if any outsider reads all > this. Ultimately what we are going to achieve by doing > this. It reminds one of Dhritaraashtra sabha where the king/owner hesitated in taking a harsh action when necessary. Not to waste a mail, here's some nice information: The Mahanarayana Upanishad, while describing the Lord in the nADi, says that the Lord is responsible for keeping our body warm: santApayati svaM dehamApAdatalamastakam.h | shrI dhIrendra tIrtha's commentary: svaM dehaM svakIyaM dehaM santApayati auShNayuktaM karoti | svadehasantApa evAgnisadbhAve liN^gam.h | Further on, it says: tasyAH shikhAyA madhye paramAtmA vyavasthitaH | sa brahma sa shivaH sa hariH sendraH so.axaraH paramaH svarAT.h || Referring to the Paramatma who sits in the centre of heart (of sushumna nADi), it says that He is Brahma, Rudra, Hari, Indra etc. So, does this speak of identity with Brahma, Rudra and Indra? No, it cannot, for, Brahma is said to be created by Vishnu in the beginning of the Upanishad: 'adbhyaH saMbhUto hiraNyagarbha' and he is said to have instructed that one should offer to oblations to that Supreme Being who is the Lord of all. Explaining that, Sri Dhirendra tirtha says: 'sa brahma' -- He is called Brahma because He has infinite guNas. 'sa shivaH' -- He is called Shiva because He is of essence of bliss and He is auspicious. 'sa hariH' -- He is called Hari because He is the enjoyer of all yaj~nAs. 'sa indraH' -- He is called Indra because He has unsurpassable 'Aishvarya' (Aishvarya itself has been translated elsewhere as the quality of being capable to do anything in anyway) Finally, he says, 'etAdR^ishaH paramAtmA hR^idayakamale vartate sa upAsyaH' : Upasana of such a Paramatma, who resides in the heart, should be done. Regards, Krishna Kadiri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 --- Madhusudan Bheemasenarao <madhusudanb wrote: > > Anand Manvi [m_anand_rao] > Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:21 AM > > Re: Why fear all > controversies? > > > This is my last reply for this thread. ** This is not a thread , if has been then only u can cut this with ur last reply. But it is not. **This is an discussion of an tattva (Swaroopa Vichara). “ Vaade Vaade Jaayate TattvaBhodhah” so we are only debating on Sri Vadirajara Swaroopa on the basis of Pramanas like 1. Shrutis, 2. Smrutis 3. Yukti 4. Sri Vadirajara own words which are available now in his Granthas. ( Yuktimallika, Haribhaktilata, SarasaBharatiVilasa etc. etc.). and atlast Haridasara Vachanas. **While discussing all these Pramanas one thing we must not forget that is Sri Vadirajara Vachana is Niravakasha (that each and every one has agreed) so on the basis of his Vachana if we discuss then only we will come to an conclusion otherwise there won’t be any Nirnaya. > > And to dear Madusudhan Bheemsen Rao, this will be > the last time > you'll ever advise me on choosing my Guru. > > I never advised you .I criticised you for > spreading your ignorance in this list without > knowing intricacies of Shastra. > > Often People tend to quote Sri Purandaradasa's > " Guruvina GulamanAguva tanaka " forgetting last line > > nAradavarada varada purandara vittalana > sErikondavana tA padeyuva tanaka > > This last line itself gives charecteristics of a > SvarUpaUddAraka Guru. > As regards to my criticisms on Sri Sathyathma > tIrtha Swamiji: > I personally have nothing against His Holiness or > Uttaradhi Matha.I don't talk or write out of my > hat.I have provided enough evidences from Uttaradhi > Matha Website.My reactions are only issue based. I > have high regards towards all Peethadhi pathis as > long as they preach Sri Madhacharya's ,Hairdasa's > Vakyas in the right spirit and lead us in the right > direction.and If you fail to disect and seperate > issue and regards/respect, it is your problem and > not mine.I follow, " Vastu nishtE and not Vyakti > niShte " . > As regards to Vayu-Amsha: > Recently I was discussing Amsha issue with my > friend Shrisha Rao(Dvaita.Org) he made following > observations.I am just sharing for the benefit of > readers. > > ______________________________\ ______________ > " It is settled siddhAnta that Vayu has no > aMsha-s. The aMsha-amshI-bhAva applies jIva-s like > Ashvatthama/Rudra and Arjuna/Indra where the aMsha > (e.g., > Arjuna) does not experience the joys of the aMshI > (Indra), and the latter does not experience the > suffering of the former (for instance, > Indra was not at all bothered with the grief > Arjuna felt at Abhimanyu's death). The aMsha and > aMshI may even oppose each other, e.g., when > Arjuna and Indra went to war over the khANDava > forest. > > Vayu energizes all beings and in some cases > especially so; e.g., his presence in Duryodhana > gave the latter the strength of 10,000 > elephants; also see the vighneshvara-stotra-sandhi > of the HKAS, where Vinayaka is described as > `prANAveshayuta-prakhyAta-prabhu', meaning > that the `khyAti' of that deity comes from the > Avesha of Vayu. (We of course may also infer that > this same Avesha is also responsible for > Vinayaka's achievements such as > `vyAsakR^ita-granthagaLanaritu prayAsavillade-baredu > vistarisideyO lOkadoLu'.) > > However, with regard to Vayu himself, it is the > case that there is never any diminution in > knowledge or other qualities, and thus, as > Srimad Acharya puts it, `baT.h tad.h darshataM > itthaM *eva* nihitam.h' (the qualities cited are of > course as given in the RV, `baT.h itthA > tad.h vapushhe adhAyi darshatam.h', & c.). There > is no occasion for any aMsha-aMshI-bhAva, and no > aMsha of Vayu is possible -- Vayu always > incarnates only in forms that are as powerful as > his Root-Form (e.g., all his avatAra-s are > `chiranjIvi'-s) " > > ______________________________\ _________ > > > And you while talking so much about Madhva > tradition, did sound more fanatic than anyone else > here, atleast. > > Thanks; Yes I am a fanatic person about Madhva > sidhdhantha.and I donot tolerate any nonsense. > > As regards to Rujutva: > Lack of Pramanas in Sanskrit, is only the reason > for Anti-Rujutva,gramthas quoted by Sri Madhacharya > in Sarvamulas like Brahma Tarka are not available > today.So apply same principle of Anti-Rujutva and > reject complete Madhva Sidhdhantha. > Kannada/Sanskrit: > Aparoxa jnani Haridasas revealed devata rahasya > only to enhance Bhakti about our Saints to common > people.and that is the basis of belief.IN the best > interest, no body should dare to cross boundaries > to question AparOxa jnanis VAkhyas .If that is > questioned or hit with Poorvagraha, then a pertinent > question will arise in the minds of devoted > Madhvas as what is left for us to respect or regard > these preachers of anti-Rujutva??? > ** we are not quoting any Pramana which are not available at present but we are presenting such Niravakasha and Abhadhita Pramana of Sri Vadirajara Granthas which are available at present. **Whatever the pramana or Haridasara Vachana are there, they are not Niravakasha and Bhadhita also. So with Savakasha and Bhadhita Pramana we can’t prove anything. Our Madhva Siddhanta also stands on the basis of Niravakasha and Abhadhita and Yuktisiddha Pramana. Here Iam quoting some Pramanas of Sri Vadirajara Granthas to discuss. One thing we must remember that is accordint to Rujugala Swaroopa they shouldn’t pray Adhamadevata, and they shouldn’t reveal their swaroopa as Naanu Ajnani, Naanu Doshee etc. etc. Because they have their Swaroopa Jnana always so Idara Vipareetavagi Avaru Avara Swaroopavannu HeLabaaRADU. Aadare Sri Vadirajaru Avaru RujugalaagiddarE RujuSwaroopada Viruddhavagi yake HeLabEkaagittu? 1. Haribhaktilata (Grantha) Shivaajnayaa Vadirajah Shivaadeenam Anugrahaat. Haribhaktilatapushtyai chakara Kavitaamrutam.. In this shloka he has prayed lord Shiva. Accordint to Taratamya Lord Shiva comes after Vayu, Bharati, Shesha, Garuda. ** in end of the same Grantha shloka no 396 Anena Priyataam Shreeshah Priyetaam Vaanyumaapatee. Suraah Sadaaraah Priyantaam Anughrunhantu nah sadaa. Again in this shloka Sri Vadirajaru prayed Lord Lakshmipati SriHari, Vaanipati Vayu, Umapati Shiva and all Devataas and their wifes. 2. Shatprashnopanishad – Bhashya – Teeka – Tippani Shatprashnopanishad Bhashya TeekaarthaVachanena ME. Priyataam Hayamukhah Shrimaan Kaamaadeen Hantu Shadripoon.. In this shloka Sri Vadirajaru has prayed Lord Sri Hayagreeva, by commentary to Shatprashnopanishad Bhashya Teeka “ Nanna Kaamaadi Shad Vairigalannu Samharisali” that all kaamaadi shad Vairi which are in me that has to be cleared. Rujugalige Kaamaadi Doshagalu Illadeiruvaga Aa Doshagalannu Samharisali Endu Prarthisuvadu Uchitavalla. E reetiyagi Sri Vadirajara Granthagalalli Rujutva Viruddavada PramanaGale Jaastiyagi eruvudarinda Avarannu Naavu Rujugalendu Upasisuvadu Uchitavalla. Lastly I will say that I am not going to heart anyone’s belief. Only I want to discuss because “ Vaade Vaade Jaayate Tattvabhodah”. Hari Sarvottama Vayu Jeevottama J Raghavendracharya ---------- > Lastly, I was very happy to sing with Madhvas > belonging to various Mathas from all over US > ------ " Kande Kande Rajara " song by Nijapurandara > Vittala daaru > on Sri Vadirajaru during recently held > Mettilotsava at Pitsburgh. > > Let us follow with Shradda and Bhakti: > > KANDAVARA MATHU > NoT KANDA KANDAVARA MATHU. > > I take this opportunity to thank Dr.Sreenivasa > Havanur, Sri NAPS Rao, Sri Gopala Krishna Varna for > sharing wonderful thoughts on this subject. > I also thank members, who have communicated to me > privately on this subject. > > I quote last few lines from Vijaya Kavacha. > > mandamatigaLu ivara chendavariyade > ninde mAdalu bavada bhanda tappadu. > indirApati ivara munde kunivanu > anda vachanava nijake tandu tOrpanu > sateyidallavO vyAsavittala ballanu > paTisabahudidhu kELi kutilarahiTaru > > NamaskaragaLu > Madhusudan Bheemasenarao 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.