Hare Krishna Narendra Prabhu. Also, one point I am realising --- I have sent at least a good 4 mails on this issue but only the first 2 have appeared. Obviously there is some uncalled for censorship to stifle what someone sees as external intervention into self-interpreted sectarian attitudes going on here. what can be done ? those who encourage discussion are also the culprits in curtailing the discussion when they perceive an expansion beyond the self0imposed boundaries they have set for these. Hare Krishna ! dasan, R. Jai Simman Singapore ----- Original Message ----- From: <SriRangaSri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <SriRangaSri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:58 PM Subject: [SriRangaSri] Digest Number 48 > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Srirangasri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > There are 3 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. SriRangaSri Vol.I/024 d/03/03/01 > From: Ramanbil@xxxx > 2. > From: Narender Reddy <reddynp@xxxx> > 3. Re: http://www.radioramanuja.com/ - Prabhandam On-Line > From: sriharirag@xxxx > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:36:15 -0000 > From: Ramanbil@xxxx > Subject: SriRangaSri Vol.I/024 d/03/03/01 > > SrIman! SrI Ranga Sriyam anubadravam anudhinam samvardhaya/ > SrIman! SrI Ranga Sriyam anubadravam anudhinam samvardhaya// > KAvEri VardhathAm kAlE, kAlE varshathu vAsava:/ > SrI RanganAthO jayathu SrI Ranga SrIs cha VardhathAm// > ===================================================== > SRI RANGA SRI VOL. I / 024 DATED 3rd March 2001 > ===================================================== > EDITORIAL: > We are glad to present the 24th Issue of "Sri Ranga Sri" > In this issue, we present Part 6 of "Greatness Of Bhagavad Ramanuja > Darsanam" dealing with "Other Differences" > ===================================================== > [Please read the note and request given while introducing the series. > If anything has been expressed forcefully it is only to bring home > the point more graphically and is not meant to hurt anyone's feelings] > Dasoham > Anbil Ramaswamy > ========================================== > Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam (GRD 6) > (Other Differences) > =========================================- > SECTION 3D: "TRANSITORINESS " > SECTION 3E: " TRUTH EMERGES FROM UNTRUTH" > SECTION 3F: ARE DREAMS REAL? > SECTION 3G: "LIBERATION THROUGH KNOWLEDGE." And > SECTION 3H: "JEEVAN MUKTI" > (LIBERATION WHILE LIVING IN THE PHYSICAL BODY) > ================================================ > SECTION 3(D) TRANSITORINESS > ==================================================== > The Advaitins hold that other than Brahman, all else is > impermanent. Hence, not real. A mud pot when broken is no more called > a mud pot. It WAS, but IS NOT. Hence, its existence cannot be termed > as real. Whatever is inconstant is not real. > Comments: > (i) This is a much more vulnerable argument than any advanced earlier. > *To be transitory is not to be illusory. Everything in the world is > real and not chimerical; factual and not > Fatuous. > > (ii) By this argument, Nirvisesha Advaita could label even the Vedas > themselves to be illusory since the Vedas are said to disappear at > the time of PraLaya, only to be brought back by Brahman at the > beginning of the next Kalpa. > > This would be a blatant repudiation of the Vedas whereby even the > SAmAnya Dharmas (ordinary duties) prescribed therein would not have > to be observed. > > One will have no duties to perform and the non-performance will not > result in any harm. > > (iii) When everything is unreal, no teacher could be real and no > pupil either. As both of them are unreal, any instruction supposed to > be transmitted from teacher to pupil would also be unreal. > > *The AchArya who believes his Sishya to be false cannot impart any > knowledge nor can a Sishya believing his AchArya to be false can > imbibe any knowledge. > > Where is the link between the teacher and the taught, when neither of > them is real? * > > (iv) The very proposition that Brahman is shadowed by nescience is > wholly repugnant to the very nature of Brahman - the one destroyer of > all obscurations and shadowing. > > *Such a proposition is not conducive to a Sense -illumination but > only in Sense-obscuration and Sense-Vacuation* says Kesava Iyengar > > (v) When ChAndOkya Upanishad says that there is one without a second, > it does not mean the world is unreal. > *ParamAtma and JeevAtma are real. > The world is real. > Vedas are real. > And all of them are ETERNALLY real. * > ' He is without equal' means that there is none superior to him. When > someone says 'Arjuna is the real archer' it does not mean other > archers are not real; it only means that they are no match to Arjuna > in his skills of archery. > =================================================== > SECTION 3 (E) " TRUTH EMERGES FROM UNTRUTH" > ================================================== > The Advaitins talk of truth emerging from untruth - "Asatyaath Satya > Siddhi". The untrue silver appears as true shell; from the untrue > serpent appears the true rope. > > COMMENT OF OTHER SCHOOLS: > The answer of other schools is that so long as the silver > generates joy and the serpent produces fear - they should be > considered real. When the Vedas say " There was neither Sat nor Asat"- > it refers to the stage of deluge. By this, it cannot be concluded > that the very Brahman was neither Sat nor Asat. > > Prof. Narayanachariar: > "As per the Advaitins, if the mumukshu does not know untruth also, it > is necessary to teach him first that untruth and then make him give > it up for a higher truth!" > > Bhagavad RamAnuja says - 'Sruti is more kind to her followers than a > 1000 parents together -"MAthA pithr sahasEbhyOpi vatsalathara: > Sruti"(Gita BAshyam II-44) > > Why should such Sruti teach falsehood, only to be abandoned and > prosecuted and even mislead innocent novices?" > > Prof. Narayanachariar- > Now, let us see what "Sathya" means. > Referring to the etymology of the word Satya, Bhagavad RamAnuja says > in Vedartha Sangraha, quoting Taittriya Upanishad II-6 and > BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad III-9-9 > Satya is a compound of Sat + Tyat which means- > *That which is HERE NOW + that which WAS THERE THEN". In other words, > that truth or reality as (Satyam) is what we comprehend when > the 'disembodied' and 'embodied' forms of God are put together"* > =============================================== > SECTION 3 (F) ARE DREAMS REAL? > =============================================== > *BrihadAranyaka Upanishad categorically declares that dreams are real > and are created by God* > > (i) The question arises how can we conclude that they are created by > God? And, why not say that the JeevAtma itself could create the > dreams? > > The answer is, for one thing- the JeevAtma has no power of > creation. For another, if it had the power, it will not create > unpleasant dreams for itself. We see tigers, fire, flood etc., in > which the dreamer appears as a victim. No body would indulge in > creating even in a dream such self- threatening, self- destructive > and unpleasant experiences to one's self. > > Prof. Narayanachariar explains the meaning of the word "Swapiti" the > state of dreaming or deep sleep by etymology means "returns to one's > self (i.e.) to God as the Innermost dweller". Thus, the dreams in the > dream state and the state of deep sleep are in the realm of ParamAtma > and not of the JeevAtma" > > (ii) The dreams are real so far as the person who dreams is concerned > and real so long as the duration of the dream. That the objects in > the dream vanish when the person wakes up underlines the temporary- > ness of the objects and *not that the experience itself was unreal. > The joy, the fear, the thrill, the excitement are all real for the > person dreaming who may even be able to remember and relate them > subsequently. > > (iii) Why should God create dreams at all is the next question. > The answer is- The JeevAtma does some small good deeds and > some small bad ones. They are not big enough or significant > enough to attract a palpable reward or a palpable punishment. God > gives the JeevAtma a little pleasure through pleasant experiences in > the dreams so that he is happy for the duration of the dream enjoying > pleasant things; Similarly, for the small bad ones that are not > significant enough, a mild punishment is imposed by the > Lord by making the JeevAtma feel the pain by dreaming unpleasant > things and unpleasant experiences for the duration of the dreams. > > (iv) Another question raised by Sri Chandrasekaran is that because > sometimes dreams follow certain experiences in real life, may be as a > consequence and continuation thereof, can it not be inferred that it > is the jeeva through such experiences, actually creates the dream > scenes. The answer is that that it is God who uses these impressions > as raw materials to spin the dreams for the Jeeva to experience. > > (v) Another question by Sri Chandrasekaran is that children do not > have dreams. This is not proved by Science or experience. On the > other hand, it used to be said that the Lord shows flowers to make > them smile happily and takes away the show of flowers when they start > crying on missing something. Thus, even babies do experience pleasant > and unpleasant moments, may be due to small good or bad deeds done by > them in their earlier lives. > ============================================== > SECTION 3 (G) LIBERATION THROUGH KNOWLEDGE. > ==================================================== > The Advaitins hold that once the Jeeva acquires the knowledge of its > identity with the ParamAtma, it acquires liberation. > > Comment of Other Schools: > The other schools do not accept this because mere knowledge is not > enough. > - Merely knowing that hunger will be abated by food, > - Merely knowing that thirst will be quenched by drinking water, > - Merely knowing that ailments can be cured by medication > Cannot entail the relevant results unless action is taken to > actually consume the food, drink or medicine respectively. > - A mere knowledge of the route cannot take one to the > destination unless one actually travels towards the destination. > Knowledge is, of course, necessary as a motivating force for > performing appropriate action of say, Karma yoga, Bhakti yoga or > Prapatti as the case may be, which would qualify one for liberation > > Prof. Narayanachariar argues- > "The knowledge of a new city one has "not actually visited", can be > first gained through a guidebook or a map, for the exact location of > a building or a street and on that basis when we actually visit that > city the "experience" now gained is not cancellatory of the former > but confirmatory only. > > Similarly, the photograph of a living person, which we first see, and > then the person himself - the two experiences are corroborative and > not contradictory. > > Thus for Bhagavad RamAnuja, the Paravidyas constitute a direct means > to God-vision as understood by Veda VyAsa and his venerable father > ParAsara. The knowledge per se does NOT lead to mOksha but opens up a > means to be adopted for attaining mOksha" > > Talking about 'Knowledge', Brahma Sutram starts with the opening > sentence thus:- > " Om atha atah brahma jignasaa" - > "Hereafter, Therefore, the desire to know Brahman". > > In this Sutra, we have > FIRST, the Brahman whose knowledge is desired; > SECONDLY, we have the desire to know (Jignasa). > THIDLY, We have the desire to know Brahman as a 'sequence' > (Atha) and as a consequence (Atah) of an antecedent occurrence. > > All the following quotes are from Sri R. Kesava Iyengar's foreword > to "SathadooshaNi" by Sri Srivatsankachariar Swami. > > *This opening sentence, according to Sri Vedanta Desika is > incompatible with the system of both Nirvisesha' and 'Advaita'- > because the entity desiring to know is unreal and non-existent as per > the Nirvisesha Advaitins* > > *There is nothing with reference to which there can be sense- > signification for there is no sense to be signified at all* > > As Swami Desika puts it. > *If the word signifies 'sense' 'Nirvisesha' is gone; > If it does not, 'Brahman' is gone-like the birth of a grandchild to a > barren woman* > > *First, a Nirvisesha Brahman is incapable of being an object of > knowledge ... * > > *Secondly, there can be no 'desire to know'. Unless there is > something in Brahman which it is desirable to know. There can be no > desire to know a bare being Brahman in all its emptiness of husk and > in all jejuneness of vacuity. > > *Unless there is something inherent in and characteristic of Brahman > which can kindle desire in the knower, no desire to know Brahman can > at all originate" ... When the knower is an illusion like a burnt > cloth to use a metaphor of the Advaitins -'dagda paTa'* > > *There is no knower, and there can be no knowledge. > Without a knower to know and an object to be known, all talk of > knowledge leading to liberation can only be trick of duplicity and > not a fact of experience*(Kesava Iyengar p.50 ibid) > > *It is not correct to say that Knowledge of oneness of 'ParamAtma > and JeevAtma is mOksha ' and the knowledge of differentiation between > them is "SamsAra* > > *The person who has no belief in the liberating knowledge provided by > the Vedas, the knower, the one who bestows knowledge (i.e.) the > Saastras that is the source of knowledge that dispels ignorance- > *If all these are false, how can one talk about 'desire for > knowledge' or the 'efficacy of instruction' (UpadEsa)? * > > *Verbal knowledge is per se unfruitful. It has to be experienced by > the hearer. The verbal knowledge that mango is sweet, however valid > and authentic, remains per se unfruitful to the hearer until he > tastes it himself* > > "When a tiger cub, which lived with a flock of sheep was reminded > that it was indeed a tiger cub and not sheep, by practically > demonstrating its feeding on a bloody carcass. > > *To say that he 'knew' he was a tiger would be weak indeed. He now' > was' a tiger"(Troy Wilson Organ, p.33) > > Prof. Narayanachariar adds: > *" The 'atha' preceding the AadEsa (the instruction) and the 'atah' > (therefore) further making the transmission of meaning continuous and > smooth and not indicating a contrary message of contrast, in which > case, the connectives would be "Thu" (but or on the contrary). The > AadEsa follows as a 'Corollary' and not emerges > as 'disrupting', 'devastating' conclusion to the contrary"* > ==================================================== > SECTION 3 (H) JEEVAN MUKTI > (LIBERATION WHILE LIVING IN THE PHYSICAL BODY) > =================================================== > The Advaitins hold that it is possible for the individual soul to > attain liberation while still living in the phenomenal world with the > gross body - if it realizes its unity with Brahman since realization > (or knowledge) is enough to secure liberation. Several examples are > cited to illustrate how the body continues even after one attains > what they call ' Jeevan Mukti' > > (i) When once a wheel is turned around, even when we take off our > hand, it continues to revolve due to the momentum gained while it was > turned around. > > (ii) When a vehicle moves fast, even when the brake is applied, it > screeches to a halt only after traversing at least a short distance > from the point where the brake is applied. > > (iii) In Viveka ChooDAmaNi, Adhi Sankara compares the body of a > Jeevan mukta to the dry leaves clinging to the branches of a tree > during the fall season or a cucumber fruit that had over- ripened > clinging to the branch of the tree before finally falling down. > > Advaitins call this 'Cucumber liberation'. > > COMMENT OF OTHER SCHOOLS: > The other schools do not accept this 'Jeevan Mukti'. > They hold that liberation can be attained only on the fall of the > body. This is called ' Videha Mukti'- 'Out of body liberation'-which > can arise only on death. This is because, as Visishtadvaita holds, on > performance of Prapatti, all sins are extinguished except that > portion of PrArabda karma which the ' Dripta' Prapanna has agreed to > experience till the time comes for the fall of his body in the normal > course. > > And, the very existence of the body is a result of such karma and is > required for experiencing the results of such karma. Only at the time > of death, there will be a nil balance of Karma thus entitling the > Prapanna to MOksha. > > Here is an excerpt from Satapata Brahmana of Yajurveda > As translated by Sir Monier Williams and quoted by Gerber (p.3) which > would show that the 'Jeevan Mukti' concept is not valid and > only 'Videha Mukti' is acknowledged in the Vedas. - > > " The Gods lived constantly in dread of death- > The mighty Ender - So, with toilsome rites > They worshipped and performed religious acts > Till they became immortal; > Then, the Ender said to the Gods- > "As you have made yourselves > Imperishable, so will men endeavor > To free themselves from me; > What portion then shall I possess in man?' > The Gods replied- > 'Henceforth no being shall become immortal > In his own body; this his mortal frame > Shall thou still seize? > This shall remain thine own - > He who through Knowledge or religious works > Henceforth attains to immortality > Shall first present his body, Death, to thee"' > > The Advaitins call this ' Krama Mukti' open to those souls that have > not realized their identity with the ParamAtma. > ==================================================== > GRD 7: SECTION 4: COMMON GROUNDS AS BETWEEN > ADVAITA, DVAITA AND VISISHTADVAITA will follow > ==================================================== > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:27:22 -0800 (PST) > From: Narender Reddy <reddynp@xxxx> > Subject: Re: A Humble Correction to Mr GK Ramakrishnan's mail ... > > > --- Anand K Karalapakkam <kgk@xxxx> wrote: > > SrI: > > SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH > > > > namO nArAyaNa! > > > >I would like to remind you that this > > list has the > > basis of SrI VaishNava SampradAya. Kindly read the > > following > > The Sanskrit term "Vigraha" is very much used > to > > denote > > archA-avatAram of PerumAL {Like "Vigraha > > AarAdhanam" etc}. > > "Idol" is its English equivalent. There is nothing > > wrong > > in that word as such to denote PerumAL. > > Is it not that the word "Idol" represents ideation? > Perhaps, you should go to the Latin root for the word > to extract the real meaning (jest like we go to the > Sanskrit root for our words) then perhaps you will be > able to conclude if we couyld use it to denote God (I > accept only one God Lord Sriman Narayana). I feel that > there is everything wrong in using the word "IDOL." > > Yes, in the age of Kali yuga, when a majority of the > so called Sri Vaishnavas are clebrating the mid night > of January first (Christian New Year) as their own New > Year, and celebrating the Christian Millianeium as > their own sending Christian Millianium greetings to > one another (even on the internet), I guess God could > be reduced to that of an "IDOL." > > Do you go to a respected Swami and call him "He Guy?" > However, there are some of us either Sri Vaishnavas or > not who might feel it insulting to refer God's Sri > Vigraham as "Idol." > > > modern thinkers > > started criticizing "Idol Worship" etc and the > > name "Idol" got > > involved in such issues while referring to PerumAL > > => Usage > > of this word became mis-leading. Thus, we may > > resort to other terms. > > > There is a lot of difference between Lord's > > picture and > > His archA-avatAram like either Vigraha Or > > SAlagrAma-MUrti. > > The former is only a representation of Him with > > His divine > > form {the paper etc being prakruti only} and the > > latter is > > verily Himself with the suddha-sattva form {either > > due > > to consecration by Aagamas Or taken by Lord > > Himself on His > > own}. > > Are you saying that the Archa Murthy in my home is not > God or does not have the same power. Isopanishad > declares: "Purnam Ada Purnamidam..." The Archa Murthy > has the same power as in the Nitya Vibhoothi. When he > descends, he descds with all his power. How about a > guy > who does not have a moorthy in the house or he is > travelling, and he has only a photo calender. Suppose, > he does arch to that form. Do you think that God does > not accept that archa? > > In the service of Lord Sri Venkateswara, I remain, > > Sincerely > Narender Reddy > reddynp@xxxx > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:26:09 -0000 > From: sriharirag@xxxx > Subject: Re: http://www.radioramanuja.com/ - Prabhandam On-Line > > Dear Sir, > > Srimathe Narayanaye namah... > > I am a student here in USA and I had always felt a need for learning > Divya Prabandham and this site has given me a way to do so. > The recitation by Dr. MAV and others is very clear and it was like > music to my ears hearing the Divya Prabandam. > My humble namaskarams to the feet of all the people involved in this > project. > > Adiyen > Srihari Raghavan > > > --- Pattangi <danp@xxxx> wrote: > > > SrimathE rAmAnujAya namaha > > > > > > Dear Devotees: > > > > > > With the divine blessings of Lord Sriman Narayana > > > and our achAryAs, we > > > have started work on radioramanuja.com > > > > > > This is an attempt to bring 4000 Divya Prabhandam & > > > Vedas Chanting from > > > authentic sources. > > > In the near future we will also have Santhai format > > > on-line for those who > > > want to learn. > > > > > > We have most of Periyazhwar's pasurams on line. We > > > are counting on your > > > feedback as to the quality of > > > audio & any improvements that could be done. > > > > > > > > > http://www.radioramanuja.com/ > > > > > > You will need realplayer installed in your machine > > > to hear realaudio. > > > > > > We are trying to get approval from original sources > > > in India, and once we > > > have it as time permits, > > > we will be putting up Chants in four major styles: > > > Kancheepuram, Srirangam, > > > Thirupathi, Thiruvalikkeni > > > > > > Shri. Venkat and others from Bahrain > > > (rmvenkat@xxxx) have done a > > > wonderful job of putting > > > the text and audio on-line: > > > http://www.srivaishnava.20m.com/prabandham.htm > > > > > > With LORD SRIMAN NARAYANA's grace we could start > > > this process, > > > and with his blessings we look forward to making > > > progress. > > > > > > AzhwAr EmberumAnAr Jeeyar ThiruvadigalE saranam > > > > > > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan > > > Mukundan Vankipuram Pattangi > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > Srirangasri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > eating beef and meat of pig is considered sin by Hindus. we treat > cow as kamadhenu.Moreover science says eating these two meat has > carbon contents. This is injurious to stomach and health.Avoid non > vegetarian food at any cost. > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ >
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |