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/
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |