Meaning of Sri Vaishnavism for Western-born Indians

October 5, 2009

I have been reading the posts of Mr Rajesh and I understand the concern behind his observations. Really our boys and girls born abroad are in real cultural fiasco. They are born and brought up in totally strange surroundings of culture. They feel the dearth of native cultural imbibing when they have to face peer groups at schools and colleges. As the great book I am reading just now shows viz., 'Invading the

Sacred' by Mr Krishnan Ramaswamy et al. the perverted and purile attempts by certain academic groups to tarnish and estrange the picture of Hinduism in the minds of Hindu young generations in particular, it is really pathetic we in home country are bothering least about our overseas kith and kin. (of course excepting some people like Mr Anbil) I would like to be of any possible help in case. Srirangam V Mohanarangan --- On Sun, 10/4/09, Rajesh

<optical_physicist wrote:Rajesh <optical_physicist Meaning of Sri Vaishnavism for Western-born Indians Date: Sunday, October 4, 2009, 9:34 PM

Dear ,

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I joined to gain a better appreciation of what it meant to my late father, Srinivasa Raghavan.

First, I will admit one earlier error on my part, with the wisdom of now being 38 years old:

A little over a decade ago, I purchased a 4-volume English translation of the 13 Principal Upanishads by Swami Nikhilananda of the Vivekananda Society. Let us for now, ignore the fact that the translation was probably influenced by the Advaita point of view, as opposed to Vishistadvaita.

It was the folly of youth to somehow think that I could understand the Upanishads by reading them directly, without a teacher. After all, first VedaVyasa wrote the Brahma Sutras as a commentary to make the Upanishads more understandable. Then, Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanuja, and Madhva each had their own interpretations of the Brahma Sutras with their own disagreements.

The only thing my Jnana Yoga has convinced me of--with some assistance from talking to my father as well, is that Vishistadvaita seems to be the most correct. Since I believe everyone in this discussion group shares that opinion, we can avoid further debate.

My recommendation to younger believers who would be tempted to follow my path would be to NOT attempt to learn the Upanishads or the Brahma Sutras without a guru. Rather, the Advaita perspective can be gleaned from Vivekananda' s writings and lectures in "The Yogas and Other Works" which was targeted at a Western audience. Sankara's Atmabodha, and Vivekachudamani have also been translated for a Western audience by the Vivekananda Society. Our own Anbil Ramaswamy's "Hinduism Rediscovered" can lead youth on the path to Vaishnavism. (Of course I have to admit that I have not gotten to that section of the book yet.) It is my earlier Jnana Yoga which ended up convincing me that Karma Yoga and Bhakti Yoga aimed at Narayana was the right path to take.

However, when it comes to the teachings of Sri Ramanuja, I have to admit that in the two weeks or so that I have been on this group, most of what I read is incomprehensible. I see so many Tamil phrases and sayings "transliterated" into English. Their seems to be an emphasis on symbols and rituals and their meanings, that the basic philosophy seems to be lost.

Why do I bring this up? I can unequivocally state that from speaking to other U.S.-born Bharat Indians in their 20s and 30s, either they are rather secular, or even if they are religious, they are skeptical of the wisdom of following the rituals. Why? Although Catholicism has a heavy emphasis on ritual as well, Protestantism, which is dominant in the U.S., has a greater focus on performing charity to emphasize devotion to God. The question I hear my friends asking is, "Why are our Hindu parents and relatives placing so much time and money in performing religious ceremonies in temples, when those resources could be put to much more beneficial use by aiding the poor and needy with our time and resources?" I do understand that organizations such as Ahobila Matam and Ramakrishna Matam perform extensive charity in India. However, many needy in India are still ignored by the middle class, and I do not see sufficient Hindu religious based charity in the

U.S.

Even from a philosophical point of view, this question resonates with me. Why? Vedanta teaches that God exists in the soul of all living beings. Although Advaita states that the soul IS God, Vishistadvaita' s teaching is that the souls of living things are the "body" of Sri Narayana, with Narayana's Soul being something even more special.

If we extend this argument, can we not state that it would be a better form of worshipping Narayana to render service to poor and needy people, or to the welfare of animals--Hindu vegetarianism is valid in this regard--than it is to seek out the 108 holy sites in South India, or to worship idols of Narayana with specific rituals and expense in material?

If Vaishnavism focuses too much on the meaning of the teachings of the Alwars with respect to rituals and the meaning of symbols, it risks losing an entire generation of Bharat Indians born in the West, who see Christianity' s greater emphasis on charity to the poor.

BTW: The reason I am a Hindu, is because I disagree with Christians that all people are inherently sinful. I am a Vaishnavite because I believe that the souls of all living beings are as divine as the body of the Lord.

Rajesh S. Raghavan

Dayton, Ohio

October 6, 2009

Swamin,

It was mentioned in the mail that the postings are in comprehensible due to tranliterated terms. There are few points adiyen can observe:

1. It is necessary to bring a person from lower level to higher level to bring in equality. and not vice versa. Hence, when incomprehendable, try getting context sensive meaning and you can ask the forum about these words also or refer online sanskrit dictionaries.

2. There is a danger in 100% translation to english. English does not have vocabulary to translate all tamil and sanskrit words. Eg: What is the exact single word for paapam is sin but punyam is...?

3. Being interesteed in our sampradaayam, go ahead to learn then basic from the ebooks series like ahobilavalli etc. Initially it is difficult...But keep firm heart and determintion...lord will guide you through the path in his own way...

4. Translating all works into western languages is as dangerous as its advantage.

I request your pardon also request bhagavathas to correct me if am wrong...

Azhagiyasinger thiruvadigale charanam

Adiyen

Narasimha Raghava Daasan

optical_physicistCC: From: vasan_chari_hkDate: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:14:15 +0000Re: Meaning of Sri Vaishnavism for Western-born Indians

Shrimate Ramanujaya NamahaOur vedic tradition had much more rituals than what we see today.From morning to night ,many rituals are prescribed for a vedic brahmana.Are we following those rituals?Our vedic dharma is not mere rituals.Devotion to God His devotees forms important aspect of srivaishnavism.We are incapable to approach vaikuntanath or ksheeraabdhinath neither we can perform yoga to realise the lord within.Hence the Alwars showed us the path of temple worship which is not inferior to above mentioned methods.Infact with our senses not under control ,it is the most suitable form of worship.Now,Hinduism is preserved in the form of temple worship only.If temple worship is removed from vaishnavism (Hinduism),ordinary persons will be devoid od any religious practice.Hinduism is not against charity but it is not proper to reduce the religion to merely this.Temple is the heart of an ordinary hindu hence it must be preserved. dasan On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:00:36 +0530 wrote>Dear ,As I mentioned in my earlier post, I joined to gain a better appreciation of what it meant to my late father, Srinivasa Raghavan.First, I will admit one earlier error on my part, with the wisdom of now being 38 years old:A little over a decade ago, I purchased a 4-volume English translation of the 13 Principal Upanishads by Swami Nikhilananda of the Vivekananda Society. Let us for now, ignore the fact that the translation was probably influenced by the Advaita point of view, as opposed to Vishistadvaita.It was the folly of youth to somehow think that I could understand the Upanishads by reading them directly, without a teacher. After all, first VedaVyasa wrote the Brahma Sutras as a commentary to make the Upanishads more understandable. Then, Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanuja, and Madhva each had their own interpretations of the Brahma Sutras with their own disagreements.The only thing my Jnana Yoga has convinced me of--with some assistance from talking to my father as well, is that Vishistadvaita seems to be the most correct. Since I believe everyone in this discussion group shares that opinion, we can avoid further debate.My recommendation to younger believers who would be tempted to follow my path would be to NOT attempt to learn the Upanishads or the Brahma Sutras without a guru. Rather, the Advaita perspective can be gleaned from Vivekananda's writings and lectures in "The Yogas and Other Works" which was targeted at a Western audience. Sankara's Atmabodha, and Vivekachudamani have also been translated for a Western audience by the Vivekananda Society. Our own Anbil Ramaswamy's "Hinduism Rediscovered" can lead youth on the path to Vaishnavism. (Of course I have to admit that I have not gotten to that section of the book yet.) It is my earlier Jnana Yoga which ended up convincing me that Karma Yoga and Bhakti Yoga aimed at Narayana was the right path to take.However, when it comes to the teachings of Sri Ramanuja, I have to admit that in the two weeks or so that I have been on this group, most of what I read is incomprehensible. I see so many Tamil phrases and sayings "transliterated" into English. Their seems to be an emphasis on symbols and rituals and their meanings, that the basic philosophy seems to be lost.Why do I bring this up? I can unequivocally state that from speaking to other U.S.-born Bharat Indians in their 20s and 30s, either they are rather secular, or even if they are religious, they are skeptical of the wisdom of following the rituals. Why? Although Catholicism has a heavy emphasis on ritual as well, Protestantism, which is dominant in the U.S., has a greater focus on performing charity to emphasize devotion to God. The question I hear my friends asking is, "Why are our Hindu parents and relatives placing so much time and money in performing religious ceremonies in temples, when those resources could be put to much more beneficial use by aiding the poor and needy with our time and resources?" I do understand that organizations such as Ahobila Matam and Ramakrishna Matam perform extensive charity in India. However, many needy in India are still ignored by the middle class, and I do not see sufficient Hindu religious based charity in the U.S.Even from a philosophical point of view, this question resonates with me. Why? Vedanta teaches that God exists in the soul of all living beings. Although Advaita states that the soul IS God, Vishistadvaita's teaching is that the souls of living things are the "body" of Sri Narayana, with Narayana's Soul being something even more special.If we extend this argument, can we not state that it would be a better form of worshipping Narayana to render service to poor and needy people, or to the welfare of animals--Hindu vegetarianism is valid in this regard--than it is to seek out the 108 holy sites in South India, or to worship idols of Narayana with specific rituals and expense in material?If Vaishnavism focuses too much on the meaning of the teachings of the Alwars with respect to rituals and the meaning of symbols, it risks losing an entire generation of Bharat Indians born in the West, who see Christianity's greater emphasis on charity to the poor.BTW: The reason I am a Hindu, is because I disagree with Christians that all people are inherently sinful. I am a Vaishnavite because I believe that the souls of all living beings are as divine as the body of the Lord.Rajesh S. RaghavanDayton, Ohio

Don’t fall behind. Log on to MSN India for a roundup on the world panorama