Why Sri Ramanuja preferred Pancharatra over Vaikhanasa & Goloka above Vaikuntha ...

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

Many thanks to all the devotees once more for their contributions.

 

This is a Sri Vaishnava forum and once again, I humbly request devotees not to discuss other sampradayas for the simple fact that the positions posited by the other lineages is misrepresented through very simplistic statements which are either only partially correct or totally incorrect or tilted to look problematic as per the semantics and theology of the Sri Vaishnava lineage. Let's be very careful when saying "this is not in accordance with shruthi" etc. If shruthi is the monopoly of just one sampradaya, we will not be having many darshanas. Even how the word "Narayana" and "Lakshmi" are seen differs from one line to another. The idea of Goloka being above Vaikuntha or Radha being above Lakshmi are not to be seen in some type of combative "holier than thou" English semantical approach. There are nuances involved here which relate to the same tattva and its permutations in terms of rasa language. Shruti pramana

is there for the latter too. If anyone is interested, please write to me separately. For all of your information, it is not only the Gaudiyas who have the concept of Goloka or Krishna as avatarin. The Vallabha and Nimbarka lines have these too together with Radha tattva.

 

It is best to stick to what the Sri Vaishnava acharyas have said when it comes to discussing issues on this forum and mention that other views have not been posited by them. That much would be accurate and courteous. However, when we go beyond that to say, "this is not in accordance with shruthi", etc. or "puranas are quoted instead of shruti" by way of forcefully juxtaposing a certain sampradayic conclusion that forces a virodha between the two, without understanding what the other line is actually trying to say, then it opens up a big pandora's box.

 

Let the individuals decide which is best for them and pursue their chosen path. If there are devotees here who wish to find out the proper Gaudiya conclusion, please write to me separarely at rjsimman. Certainly, all of the comments presented regarding the Gaudiya conclusion as far as I have seen thus far, are not what Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas have stated. They are either untrue, half true or true but with an explanation that does not even reflect Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta. A sincere follower is expected to defend his line when it is misrepresented. However, I run the risk of being told to be quiet since this forum is not meant for discussing Gaudiya Vaishnavism and this is really very painful. This has happened several times before. A Sri Vaishnava would certainly not keep silent if his line is misrepresented in a Gaudiya forum. I would request the devotees here to entertain the same

etiquette in the reverse.

 

Therefore, it is my humble request once again to discuss only things that a devotee is properly conversant with in terms of sampradayic training and desist from discussing others that are mostly based on secondary information, opinions given by neophytes of other lines, etc. Let us please take first hand information from a seriously evolved practitioner (yes, a book alone without consultation will not do) and then understand the similarities and differences and move on in the direction of the path that best appeals to us.

 

A learning forum should be different from a debating forum and if a debate is welcome, the forum should be a neutral one. Otherwise, lots of loaded distractions come in and no one learns anything.

 

Krishne matir astu,

 

 

dasan,

jai simman

[Guest guest]

Jai Sriman Narayana!

Jai Sri Ramanujacharya!

Jai Sruti shastra!

 

First, no matter how you look at it, or how well written some may put it. It

is a matter of Shruti. Shruti is the basis of the Sanatana Dharma. Personally, I

know the Gaudiya Sampradayam sadhanta very well and the other latter-day

sampradayams that were mentioned. Shruti says in many places the authority of

Vishnu/Narayana. I can give these quotes. It does not say any where that Krishna

avatara or Radha are superior to Vishnu...no where.

When was said... " The idea of Goloka being above Vaikuntha or Radha being

above Lakshmi are not to be seen in some type of combative " holier than thou "

English semantical approach. " , well, it is to some of these latter day

sampradayams. They are Combative in their " preaching " . I have personally

experienced this. It is about upholding Shruti and our Sri Sampradaya

traditions. Certain Sampradayams ARE combative in spreading their particular

sect beliefs. Such as Lakshmi is a demi-goddess or Vishnu a mere tattwa of

Krishna avatara.Are we not allowed to protect our line from the influence of

these evangelical, non-shruti following sects?

When it was said.... " If shruthi is the monopoly of just one sampradaya, we

will not be having many darshanas. " The point of the matter is, that all

sub-groups of the Hindu religion SHOULD BE following shruti....period. Some

" Vaishnava " sects consider shruti karma khanda or some how of less importance to

the bhagavata purana or their particular inner-sect book's and shouldnt be

followed at all. I know this for a fact.

When it was said... " it is not only the Gaudiyas who have the concept of

Goloka or Krishna as avatarin. The Vallabha and Nimbarka lines have these too

together with Radha tattva. " . This statement is use by proponents and those

sympathetic to Iskcon/Gaudiyas. The idea behind this is that, because there

three or four other " Vaishnava " Sampradayams that think that Krishna Avatara and

Radha is above Vishnu and Lakshmi amma, that is gives them an advantage or

Superiority. This isnt a numbers game,...it is about whats stated in Shruti

Sastra.

When it was said.... " by way of forcefully juxtaposing a certain sampradayic

conclusion that forces a virodha between the two, without understanding what the

other line is actually trying to say, then it opens up a big pandora's box. "

First, certain newer sampradayams are on an Evangelical Attack to bring others

to their particular sect. One way, by denigrated other Sampradayams and groups.

I have experienced this. And, it is in their books and other literature.

It is nice to think in all sides of any matter, but, in this case. The views

put forth in the post before, is subtlety very much in favor of and on the side

of these other sampradayams.

Also, when it was said.... " to discuss only things that a devotee is properly

conversant with in terms of sampradayic training and desist from discussing

others that are mostly based on secondary information, opinions given by

neophytes of other lines " . Personally, I am very much aquainted with the sadhana

of the Sri Sampradayam and that of the other sampradayams mentioned. I have

studied their literature for years, sat in their lectures while they denigrated

Narayana and Lakshmi.

" Let us please take first hand information from a seriously evolved

practitioner (yes, a book alone without consultation will not do) " ....lets talk

to Velkuddi Krishnan Swamy, Chinna Jeeyar Swami or Pro. Narashimha swamy of

Chennai to see what they think.

I am trying not to be " combative " . But, to defend.

 

Lakshmi-Narayana matir astu

adiyen,

Ramanuja dasan

 

 

 

 

 

 

ramanuja , " Jai Simman R. Rangasamy " <rjsimman wrote:

>

> Hare Krishna.

>  

> Many thanks to all the devotees once more for their contributions.

>  

> This is a Sri Vaishnava forum and once again, I humbly request devotees not to

discuss other sampradayas for the simple fact that the positions posited by the

other lineages is misrepresented through very simplistic statements which are

either only partially correct or totally incorrect or tilted to look problematic

as per the semantics and theology of the Sri Vaishnava lineage. Let's be very

careful when saying " this is not in accordance with shruthi " etc. If shruthi is

the monopoly of just one sampradaya, we will not be having many darshanas. Even

how the word " Narayana " and " Lakshmi " are seen differs from one line to another.

The idea of Goloka being above Vaikuntha or Radha being above Lakshmi are not to

be seen in some type of combative  " holier than thou " English semantical

approach. There are nuances involved here which relate to the same tattva and

its permutations in terms of rasa language. Shruti pramana is there for the

latter too. If

> anyone is interested, please write to me separately. For all of your

information, it is not only the Gaudiyas who have the concept of Goloka or

Krishna as avatarin. The Vallabha and Nimbarka lines have these too together

with Radha tattva.

>  

> It is best to stick to what the Sri Vaishnava acharyas have said when it comes

to discussing issues on this forum and mention that other views have not been

posited by them. That much would be accurate and courteous. However, when we go

beyond that to say, " this is not in accordance with shruthi " , etc. or " puranas

are quoted instead of shruti " by way of forcefully juxtaposing a certain

sampradayic conclusion that forces a virodha between the two, without

understanding what the other line is actually trying to say, then it opens up a

big pandora's box.

>  

> Let the individuals decide which is best for them and pursue their chosen

path. If there are devotees here who wish to find out the proper Gaudiya

conclusion, please write to me separarely at rjsimman Certainly, all of the

comments presented regarding  the Gaudiya conclusion as far as I have seen thus

far, are not what Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas have stated. They are either

untrue, half true or true but with an explanation that does not even reflect

Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta. A sincere follower is expected to defend his line

when it is misrepresented. However, I run the risk of being told to be quiet

since this forum is not meant for discussing Gaudiya Vaishnavism and this is

really very painful. This has happened several times before. A Sri Vaishnava

would certainly not keep silent if his line is misrepresented in a Gaudiya

forum. I would request the devotees here to entertain the same etiquette in the

reverse.

>  

> Therefore, it is my humble request once again to discuss only things that a

devotee is properly conversant with in terms of sampradayic training and desist

from discussing others that are mostly based on secondary information, opinions

given by neophytes of other lines, etc. Let us please take first hand

information from a seriously evolved practitioner (yes, a book alone without

consultation will not do) and then understand the similarities and differences

and move on in the direction of the path that best appeals to us.

>  

> A learning forum should be different from a debating forum and if a debate is

welcome, the forum should be a neutral one. Otherwise, lots of loaded

distractions come in and no one learns anything.

>  

> Krishne matir astu,

>  

>  

> dasan,

> jai simman

>