You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - May 2005

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00065 May 2005

 
May 2005 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Adiyen Request bhagawatas who are close to acharyas back home and get
answers to this important question and this needs to be answered
"professionally". I had requested Sri Anbil Mama to do something about
this. He is busy currently. I am sure sri Anand Karalapakkam had done
some research on this. I am sure Sri M.S Srihari and others who are in
India can offer assistance here. If anyone can contact them, they will
be able to write a thorough reply. I feel that this is a "delicate
issue" since we are handling a difference among vaishnavas. This should
not try to destroy our unity as vaishnvas as a whole community. We
should respect all vaishnavas or else we will go against our sincere
principles: tvad britya britya paricharaka britya.... ( being a servant
of HIS servants is an important characteristic of a vaishnava). I urge
you not to indulge in criticizing other schools or disrespect other
vaishnavas. We don't need more sin.

However our srivaishnavas have to understand the subtleties clearly.
Neither these minor issues should not be taken as reasons for leaving
camps NOR should be used for recruiting weak minded people into a any
particular sect.

In short, 

Srimannarayana and Srikrishna are the one and the same identical person
as per the shastras. Note that Sri Vedantadesika has done research as to
which mantram is most encompassing and decided that "moolamantram, which
speaks of Narayana" as ultimate all encompassing mantram even in
comparison with mantrams that involve "vasudeva or Vishnu etc."
.
The proofs offered by other schools regarding differences between
goloka, vaikunta etc. are only attempts to highlight their eka bhakti to
lord Krishna. Even among our own alwars, they have shown immense bhakti
to a particular form such as Sri Ranganatha or Sri Venkatesa etc. The
pramanas cited by others from bramha vaivarta purana, radhopanisad, etc.
only help to exemplify pure Bhakti as the highest goal. Even
srivaishnava doctrines agree that in vaikuntam one experiences this
nitya bhakti or eternal bhakti. It is ridiculous to imagine that
madhurya bhakti cannot be explained in vaikuntam. Sri Nammalwars' dozens
of verses on madhurya bhakti and how he does prapatti to Sri Srinivasar
and attains vaikuntam are sufficient to erase this misconception. If one
wants to experience Lord as Krishna or prema bhakti, that can be granted
in Vaikunta also.  The shastras are clear regarding the superiority of
vaikuntam as place of apunaravritti or place from where there is no
return. Goloka can be thought of a place within vaikunta, since there
are rigvedic passages such as "yatra gavo bhuri shringah ayasah -
(please check this quote since I am trying to write from memory) -
meaning:  in vaikuntam, there are cows with big horns. Note: some
schools have misunderstood vaikunta from where jayavijaya fell due to
curse. There can be no curse or anger in vaikuntam. No such thoughts can
bother those who have reached vaikuntam other than being immersed in the
complete experience of srimannarayana (paripurna bramha ananda
anubhavam). Hence the vaikunta mentioned in the puranas is a lower place
within prakrithi mandalam (or matter) called karya vaikuntam, where
jayavijaya were door keepers. The shores of this ksheerabdhi is where
devas go and fall at the feet of the Lord to get protection from asuras.
Hence the statements from Bramha Samhita, bramha vaivarta purana quoted
only by the gaudiya vaishnavas, which may indicate goloka as different
or higher than vaikunta have to be understood only in the sense that the
madhurya bhakti is of a state of bhakti for a soul. If they want to use
these statements to enhance their bhakti to sri krishna, let them do it.
We should understand this properly. These statements in puranas have
nothing to do with belittling the status of vaikunta to another place
called goloka / brindavana. These kind of polemic battles exist only to
keep people within their systems but do not have any other significance.
Note puranic or smriti evidence should not be taken as primary. Note the
verse from taittiriya mahanarayana Upanishad - which starts from ambasya
pare bhuvanasya madhye...has a state ment: na tasyese kaschana tasya
nama mahadyasah...meaning: HE ( srimannarayana) does not have anyone as
his ruler! Hence he is known as Mahad Yasah. Don't tell me some puranic
statement will nullify this vedic statement to make Srimannarayana as
being born out of Krishna and Krishna is the ruler of Srimannarayana
who resides in each anda as the caretaker of that anda and there are
several vaikunta planets etc.....All these are wonderful smrti texts are
to guide people to have faith in SriKrishna. Srivaishnava view is that
Sri Krishna and Srimannararayana is one and the same: esa narayanah
sriman ksirarnava niketanah naga paryakam utrsrijya hyagato madhuram
purim. "This Sri Krishna is none other than Srimannarayana who has left
his snake bed ( adisesa) to come to the city of Mathura ". Sri Vedanta
Desika states in yadavabhudayam:

Devaki danuja sthuna divyam dhama vrajankanam
Rama Radhadayascheti Rasi bhedena Bhidyase

Meaning: O lord Krishna, you are the one and same person being different
only due to being in two camps: Up there in Divya dhama : vaikunta or
here in Vraja ( brindavan), whether in the womb of Devaki or in the
pillar from where SriNarasimha appeared, whether it is with Rama (or Sri
Lakshmi there in Vaikuntam) or with Radha here in Vraja.

I don't have enough knowledge to write all details. There may be errors
in this small article too. I pray to knowledgeable people to correct
this article or clarify the issues presented.

Adiyen
Krishna Kashyap


-----Original Message-----
From: SriRangaSri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:SriRangaSri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Janaki & Sampath Kumar
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:50 AM
To: SriRangaSri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [SriRangaSri] Parathvam of Sriman Narayana Vs. Krishna

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha
Srimathe Vedhantha Desikaya Namaha
Srimath VaraVara Munaye Namaha

Respected Sri Vaishnava Baghavathas

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar. This is my first question in this
scholarly forum. 

In our SriVaishnava Sidhantham it is established that Sriman Narayanan
residing in Vaikunta Lokam is parathvam and Krishna is avatharam
(Vibhavam) of Sriman Narayanan and Krishna is an expansion of Sriman
Narayanan. However, there are other schools of Vaishnavism (especially
Gaudia Vaishnavism) which staunchly advocate that Krishna is the
parathvam and Narayanan is a subform of Krishna. Even though both
these schools accept Sriman Narayanan and Krishna, why this
fundamental difference arise and which is correct?

Kindly accept adiyen's appologies if my question is inappropriate.

Adiyen

Ramanuja Dasan

Sampath Kumar...








 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WwRTUD/SOnJAA/i1hLAA/VkWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list