You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Dec 2001

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00075 Dec 2001

 
Dec 2001 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Harihi Om

Happy New Year to you all. While browsing through the archives of SriRangaSri, I
came across the following note from Sri AnandaKaralapakkam whom I used to know
personally when he was in the U.S. I believe he is back in India and I would 
very
much like to stay in touch if he can kindly write to me.

Anand made a tremendous point in his posting which brings forth clearly the
distinctions among various practices of worshipping pictures, vigrahas etc.,
concecrated or not, prevalent especially, in the U.S. notwithstanding the 
increase
in similar practices even in India in this day-and-age.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the discussion of Archavatara being a form 
or
forms in which the Lord of the universe is descent on earth just to be 
accessible
to human worship, can be found only in the Vishishtaadvaita philosophy. If that 
is
not the case, can we find references where other forms of deities such as 
Ganesha,
Shiva, Linga and so on having been justified or approved? Especially, the Linga
which is so similar to the Saligrama though the former is more often than
man-sculptured whereas the latter is to be found naturally.

Since references to Rudra, Indra and so on can be found in the Vedas 
extensively,
many a time with the same ferver and emphasis as Narayana, it appears that the
Sanatana Dharma which all of the currently recognized sampradayas are rooted in,
the Dharma (philosophy) of the Vedas has never been monotheistic. It may be that
attempts were made subsequently through Vishnu Purana, Shivapurana and so on, to
render the Dharma monotheistic adopting the presiding deity to be either 
Narayana
or Rudra depending on the viewpoints of the thinkers of that erstwhile era.

The differences in view points apparently have persisted for thousands of years
and since the different view points quote the same resources of Vedas and
Upanishads to justify them, they have clearly diminished the authenticity of the
sources themselves. I think these differences in philosophies have given rise to
polytheism leading to worshipping of multitude forms of deities and so on. I am
not trying to be skeptical of all forms of worship but I can see how deity 
worship
has deteriorated to the point of being pointless and a mundane act. I am also
concerned that the practices of deity worship by Hindus is not only still viewed
as Pagan worship by the Western religions, but has disillusioned most members of
our younger generation about our religiosity. No wonder fascination for Buddhist
teachings, new age religions, etc., is increasing among our youth many of whom 
are
also being driven towards total Atheism.

I don't know if any of you share the same views and if so, if there is anything 
we
as a group can do to improve the situation in carrying the right message to our
youth. Our temples in the U.S. have fallen into the same trap of being ritual
ridden if not for anything else but to raise funds to survive financially. I 
have
also heard people say that the teaching starts at home but I am yet to come 
across
even devout practising Srivaishnavas having successfully averted the danger of
their children entertaining ideas totally different from theirs or participated 
in
an effort of spiritual development compatible to the household they are growing
in.

Adiyen Srihari Dasan

Keshava Prasad.



Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

> SrI:
> SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH
>
> namO nArAyaNa!
>
> Dear SrI Jai Simman and other devotees,
>
> > I merely presented what my spiritual master Srila Prabhupada has explained
> > in his books
> > with regard to the Archa Murti.
>
> I know that you are a follower of SrI BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi
> and you sincerly try to reflect his views in your writings.
> While I am not against you following the views of that
> SampradAya, I would like to remind you that this list has the
> basis of SrI VaishNava SampradAya. Kindly read the following
> on what SrI-VaishNavas has to say on the philosophical
> issues which you had written.
>
> 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. But some 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.
>
> >It is verily the Lord Himself since in the ultimate issue there is
> > no difference between the Lord and His form, wherever It may be manifested
> > in as much as the Lord is present wherever Harinama is chanted because there
> > is no difference between Him and His Name.
>
> Earlier, you wrote on these lines in another SrI VaishNava list
> also. I had written few mails explaining from Brahma-SUtras
> (+SrI-BhAshya) and other pramANas that Lord is different
> from His divine body which is another tattva{reality} called
> Suddha-Sattva. While you made a blanket statement that these
> things are "mAyAvAda" etc, I had explained as to how
> Bhagavad RAmAnuja follows Sage VyAsa and Upanishads
> correctly regarding this issue. I also enlisted some
> books for your reference.
>
> Still, you have written the very same thing probably
> thinking that your understanding is same as that
> of SrI-VaishNava sampradAya {and probably forgot everything
> of what I wrote earlier}.
>
> 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}. Lord eternally has divine form at SrI-VaikuNTham. The
> archa-avatAram is the descent of that Para-VAsudEva {avatAram =
> descent) in making the materialistic forms made of Gold
> etc as Suddha-Sattva because of the procedures of the Aagama
> SAstras lovingly followed by His devotee and assumes that
> form out of abundant mercy for all the devotees to worship,
> serve and benifit.
>
> SwAmi dESikan quotes from AgamAs and says that, the excessive
> amount of milk when mixed with water, still remains as milk
> ( eg: 10 litres of milk + 1 litre of water gives 11
> litres of milk ie. the milk and water are so well
> mixed that the difference between milk and water
> can't be found). Similarly, the thirumEni of PerumAL
> in arcAvatAram has excessive suddha sattvam mixed with
> matter(prakruti) such as gold , and we shouldn't
> distinguish between suddha sattvam and the gold present.
> Thus, arcAvatAra thirumEni is suddha sattavm only (
> similar to how 11 litres of milk is referred to as
> milk, though technically 1 litre of water is present).
>
> Actually, its a very great sin to view the archa-thirumEni
> as something made up of some materialistic substance.
>
> One important siddhAnta is that even during the advanced stages
> of bhakti-yoga like Para-bhakti, the yOgi has only the
> darSana-samAna sAkshAtkAram ie. not actual sAkshAtkAram
> but mental image of Lord acquired by his yoga attains a very
> good stage, which is similar to the actual suddha-satva thirumEni
> viSishTa SrIman nArAyaNa, but not the same.
>
> I am not interested in any further discussion etc due to
> my time constraints and other important commitments. You can
> refer the books for your further doubts. If you are interested,
> I can send you an article of mine that was written on this
> issue.
>
> I would like to conclude reminding the 17th verse {ViSvAtiSAyi..}
> of VaradarAja Pan~chAsat by SrI VEdAnta DESika, which beautifully
> states {in a characteristic style of SwAmi DESikan} that (even)
> Bhakti-Yogins meditating upon Lord gets the doubt/confusion
> as to whether the divine form is Either You Or Yours, as
> both are declared in VEdas to be of the same nature as that
> of jn~AnAnanda-maya.
>
> While the two are actually different in tattva, Lord VaradarAja's
> divine body's mAhAtmyam {greatness} is also something unimaginable
> --conveys SwAmi DESikan. Thank God that unparalleled PUrvAchAryas
> of our sampradAyam like BhagavAn RAmAnuja and BhagavAn VEdAnta
> DESika have very well explained the intricacies of SAstras
> and I am no more in such a confusion as even other great yogins
> might have :-) {On a lighter note ...But the hidden message
> about our PUrvAchAryas is true}.
>
> SwAmi DESikan thiruvaDigaLE SaraNam
>
> aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
> anantapadmanAbhan.
>
> 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/







[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