Dear Sri Sri Ram, I am sorry that somewhere down the line I ended up being a little too offensive. Kindly accept my apologies. I too share most of the concerns expressed by you in the sense that we should focus on our primary interest as a Srivaishnavite, that is "Bhagavadanubhavam". Still, I beg to differ from you and Sri Kasturi Rangan (I do not imply here that you two have any common opinion on any issue discussed here) both in terminology of your concern and your mechanism of reaching conclusions based on what looked to me like an independent study of our scriptures.While acknowledging that my knowledge of scriptures is limited compared to what you seem to have (based on your postings), I continue to raise points such as following, within my understanding of our Sampradayik position. Kindly bear with me: 1. I was under the impression that the purpose of whole discussion was to gain some understanding of how our Purvacharyas established the "Narayana paratvam" based on scriptures (both Purva and Uttara Mimamsa). If that is true the discussion went too far away from this issue, rather in opposite direction. Now you have also ended up implying 1. Narayana is impersonal 2. Narayana is not Vishnu alone (or probably something like Vishnu alone can not claim Narayanahood, every other diety in Vedic pantheon has right to this claim - Sri Kasturi Rangan goes even farther than you to establish how insignificant was Vishnu in the eyes of Vedic seers) 3. Somehow something is wrong in efforts to experience "Bhagavadanubhavam" other than yogic/tantric meditation on impersonal Narayana.I dare to say that in all these points you drastically differ from Sampradayik position of our Purvacharyas.Now, I would like to know whether the whole effort is to say that our sampradayam is fundamentally flawed, then this needs a long and enlightened debate with learned people in Siddhanta. I guess this sceen is not very new to our Sampradayam as we had many poorvapakshis over the ages who argued on these lines. If the idea is to say that some kind of reform is needed in our Sampradayam, then stop arguing with terminology borrowed from others. Do you realise that what you are using is essentially Smarta/Adviatic language (Your concept of abstract Narayana implies some form of attributeless Narayana, Your suggestion about Yogic meditation is more on lines of sadhana prescribed by advaitins, They can afford to that anyway, because they are going to dump their Narayana on the way and become "Brahman" on their own. Now you dont deduce that my monotheistic chauvinism is making me disrespect other points of view. The reality is far from it. Adviatis, particularly Neovedantins, generally tend to treat our position with patronising derision as somthing coming out of lesser intelligence.I do not have any qualms about Advitins because they follow what their Acharyas teach). All this implies some kind of inferiority complex about our tradition, in my opinion, mainly emerging out of lack of faith or exposure, which is not called for in the votaries of a long lasting tradition. 2. Your persistence of quoting from Rigveda and insistence on treating it as some kind of superior evidence baffles me no end. I feel that you can put whole argument in the context of "Pramana vyavasta" of our Sampradayam.You can atleat go with "Prasthana Trayam" as they are accepted as worth commenting by all Acharyas of Vedantic tradition. Anyway, you seem to have some aversion to Puranas and Itihasas. The only idea of accepting this as pramana, as I understand, is that these are the works of Veda Vyasa and other parama Rishis, whose understanding of Shruti is unquestioned. Then and then alone, this discussion becomes worth while for laymen like me. Other wise it ends up sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of young adherents of Sampradayam. I do not say that we should not rationally study our own tradition. As a matter of fact it is fundamental to inclucating faith. But, true understanding demands razor thin intellect, time and sincere effort. And also constant alertness against falling in to wrong conclusions. Alternatively, it is my belief that one can also stand on the shoulders of the Gaints (Our Purvacharyas) and gain the glimpses of Bhagadanubhavam. 3. I also do not believe that there is any need to be intolerent to other systems, as they are any way beautifully reconciled with our own belief in works of our Purvacharyas. At the same time kindly ponder over one point. How may followers do we have in our Sampradayam. I am not talking in terms of "True" followers etc. In absolute numbers. Not really great. We have a beautiful legacy. We can not hand it down the generations unless we muster enough faith in it. If you do not, kindly make effort ( This is not meant for Sriman Sri Ram; general rhetoric) and see if this Sampradayam offers you anything worth following, under the guidence of a learned Acharya. Till then kindly reserve your damning judgements. If you are convinced doo something such that the Sampradayam lives on. This is also some sort of "Rishi runam". 4. I intend this as my last mail in this thread of discussion.Forgive me for unnecessary lecturing.With due apologies to Sriman Sri Ram and Srima Kasturi Rangan. Adiyen Srinivasadasa --- purohit@xxxx wrote: > Adiyen > > Thanks Mohan for your helpfull analysis which is > enitrely correct. But even > among the "Vaidikas" there have been problems of > monotheisitc chauvanism - I > refer to Ramanuja's encounter with Krimikantha > Chola. So generally speaking > Sanatana Dharma does have inbuilt checks and > balances - but I fear the > tipping of the scale in some of the postings that I > read. > > I lament the fact that Srivaishnavas in general are > given to too much > chattering about doctrines, dogmas, definitions of > difference and > positioning via-a-vis others, seeming to define > themselves as separate and > unique. What I would love to see is more meditation > upon the refulgent form > of Narayana. Meditation in the real sense of the > Yogic/Tantic practices. > Nammalvar meditated for 16 years before he spoke > anything, and we speak too > readily without even a reference to > meditation/realisation. Its like > discussing the taste of mangoes but never actually > eating one. > > Instead of meetings where bhaktas gather to chatter, > condemn, and engage in > self-praise while filling themselves on pongal and > puli-odharai, I would > like to see then sitting in silent meditation. > > Adiyen > > Sri Ram > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |