Dear Bhagavatas: I would like to clarify our stand. When a member posts a query relevant to SrivaishNava Sampradayam, it is approved for the first time for information of others and provide food for thought for scholars in the group. They might be ponder over and give an authoritative reply based on PramaaNams from Satvika scriptures - to the questioner. This is NOT for triggering a debate or discussion, which more often than not, takes an ugly turn. We wish to reiterate that "Sri Ranga Sri" is primarily a Journal and NOT a discussion forum. Unfortunately, it has been our experience that often times, some members while professing to reply, project their opinions and speculations without authentic PramaaNams that not only scares away the genuine questioner but also go contrary to the mission statement of the Journal. That is why, in the interest of maintaining the quality of the Journal, we encourage further disussions in private and close the topic in "Sri Ranga Sri" Journal. That is why also, we have opened a new site "SRS_Satangam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" where these discussions can be freely accommodated subject, of course, to the norms of decency and mutual respect. Hope this helps. Moderator ===================================================================== Dear Sukanya Shankar Thank you for responding to my question. However, it is unclear to me as to why the responses should be discussed as private emails? The very purpose of having a group like this is to share the knowledge of elders and scholars in a common forum. Moreover, the question which I raised is of fundamental significance and explanations in a disciplined and scholarly manner from different schools will be a great boon to our individual understanding and mutal appreciation. Is that something we are scared of to switch to private conversations? Many subjects asked in these forums are always not in everyone's favorite list and I am not sure if we can start applying the 'private email' criteria to everything. However, as one who is ready to face any amount of impediments in my quest to serve all vaishnavas, I remain. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar... --- Sampth Kumar Padmanaban <janasampath@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Bhagavatas: > As rightly pointed out by sshankar@xxxxxxxxx, > any further discussions on the subject may be > had in private mails. > Moderator. > ================================================================ > > > > Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha > Srimathe Vedantha Desikaya Namaha > Srimath VaraVara Munaye Namaha > > Dear Sri. Krishna Kashyap > > Adiyen salute you for your wonderful explanation to > the question adiyen have raised. Also, at the > outset, > adiyen would like to clearly state that it is not in > anyway my intention to trigger a discussion tilting > on > the side of critizing other vishnava systems. > > As you have aptly pointed out the pramanas namely > Vedas and Upanishads should be the ultimate > concluding > statements and not merely puranas or smritis. > > It is needless to say that all SriVaishnavas in this > esteemed forum will be delighted, if our scholars > provide a detailed reply to this issue. As you have > rightly mentioned, understanding these subtle > delicate > issues clearly makes one stronger in their system > and also build our tolerance of other systems. > However, in my humble opinion this is not a minor > issue. > > Adiyen > > Ramanuja Dasan > Sampath Kumar.. > > > --- Krishna Kashyap <krishna@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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 > > cotact 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 > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! httpVU<!/smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers. At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/hjtSRD/3MnJAA/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 |