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

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00006 Feb 2001

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


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 / 022 DATED 20th February 2001 
=========================================================== 
EDITORIAL: 
We are glad to present the 22nd Issue of "Sri Ranga Sri" 
IN THIS ISSUE:
1. "GREATNESS OF BHAGAVAD RAMANUJA DARSANAM"
We present Part 4 of this Series containing a critical review of the 
Advaitiic concept of NIR GUNA, NIR AAKARA, NIR AVAYAVA, NIR VISESHA 
BRAHMAN (Brahman who has no attributes, no parts, no qualities, no 
form, no name)
2. "QUESTION BOX ANSWERS"
You will remember that we had announced the opening of a new feature -
"Question Box" to answer specific doubts, suggestions and questions 
relating to the philosophy and practices of our tradition received 
addressed to "Sri_Ranga_Sri@xxxx". 
(and NOT to the "yahoogroups" address)

With the steady increase in membership, we are receiving increasing 
number of queries almost daily. Every effort is made to answer them 
ASAP with appropriate authority. Where a ready answer cannot be 
provided immediately, we refer them to our AchAryas and Scholars back 
home to secure authoritative explanations. This, naturally, takes 
some more time.

Some of the queries are too personal and / or are too general. There 
are, however, many others that might interest the other members. We 
collect these latter and publish our responses for the information of 
our readers in a special issue, say once in a month. 
This is the first of such special issues.

Hope you will find them interesting. You may feel free to offer your 
inputs on the various questions but address them to 
Sri_Ranga_Sri@xxxx       
and NOT to the yahoogroup" address.

3. "KNOW THIS ACHARYA"
We celebrate the Tirunakshatram day of Sri MadhurAntakam Swami (Masi-
Avittam) falling on on 22nd February 2001. A short write up on this 
AchAryan finds a place in this issue.
Dasoham
Anbil Ramaswamy
Editor & Publisher
"Sri Ranga Sri"
===============================================================
1. GREATNESS OF BHAGAVAD RAMANUJA DARSANAM (GRD 4)
SECTION 3 (B) NIR GUNA, NIR AAKARA, NIR AVAYAVA, NIR VISESHA BRAHMAN 
(Brahman who has no attributes, no parts, no qualities, no form, no 
name)
===============================================================
[Please read the note and request given while introducing the 
subject. if anything has been expressed forcefully, it is only to 
bring home the points more graphically and is not meant to hurt 
anyone's feelings.]
Dasoham
Anbil Ramaswamy
===============================================================
The Advaitins hold that there is only one Brahman that was real- the 
Parabrahmam without qualities, without attributes, without form, 
without name, without any thing to denote it. All others simply did 
not exist (including the "Apara Brahman" or "Saguna Brahman").

In other words, the Nirguna Brahman is the nondescript ParamAtman - 
which is 'Bare existence' (SanmAtra). The "Saguna Brahman" which they 
identified with Sri Narayana was only a stepping stone to facilitate 
the realization of the "Nirguna Brahman". Thus, the "Nirguna Brahman" 
is the seat of 'Avidya' or 'AjnAna' (i.e.) Nescience or Ignorance - 
a negation of all the positive qualities attributed to the "Saguna 
Brahman"

(i) The Advaitins draw inspiration from the Vedic statement 'Neti, 
Neti' which literally means 'Not this, Not this' to conclude that 
ParamAtma is indescribable. True, ParamAtma is indeed indescribable 
in the sense that He defies description.

"The words 'Neti, Neti' only means that you cannot limit his infinite 
qualities as 'this or this' either in its nature, quality, time or 
place or otherwise quantify them. Any auspicious epithets employed 
suits it, but falls far short of the actual qualities and this is 
dramatically portrayed in the expression 'Neti, Neti'. Otherwise, the 
resulting nihilism would only be a logical incongruity. " (Sri R. 
Kesava Iyengar)

Prof. Narayanachariar clarifies:
"Brahma Sutra III-2-11to 29 comprising the "Ubhayalinga AdhikaraNa 
and AhikuNDala AdhikaraNa treat this topic in one continuous stretch. 
Sutra III-2-11 is a grand preamble to the entire Upanishad. It 
says "SthAnatOspi parasya ubhayalinga Sarvatra Hi." Here "SthAna" 
means position of God ensouling Jeevas, "Sarvatra" means everywhere 
and "Hi" means "This is well known, indeed". and confirms clearly 
that -
(i) God possesses all the auspicious qualities. Sarva KAma, Sarva 
Gandha, Sarva Rasa, Sarvajna - fulfills all desires, all fragrances, 
all tastes, omniscient etc. and that
(ii) God is free from all forms of imperfections - Niranjanah, 
Nishakalam, Niravadhyam etc. - free from all taints, free from all 
black marks, free from all evils, free from all imperfections etc. 
Since both aspects are mentioned by Sruti only, a reconciliation of 
them is truly binding on anyone who holds Sruti in respect".

Thibaut observes-
" None of the Sutra decidedly favors the interpretation proposed by 
Shankara" ..."I decidedly prefer, for instance, RamAnuja 's 
interpretation of Sutra 22 as far as the sense of the entire Sutra is 
concerned and more especially with regard to the term "prakriyA 
tattvam" whose proper form is brought out by RamAnuja's explanation 
only" (p.xcvi of his translation of Sankara Bashya-Vol.1 in the 
series "Sacred Books of the East" Volume 34)

When the Upanishads say that he is without qualities, it only means 
that he is without any bad qualities. This has to be viewed in the 
light of other Vedic statements which confirm that the ParamAtma is 
the Lord, the protector.* If he has no qualities, what would he lord 
over and whom would he protect?*

(ii) The Advaitins claim that the "Nirguna Brahman" is a mere witness 
to nescience during the continuance of samsAra. It is self-defeating 
to say that Nirguna Brahmam has no 'consciousness attribute' and to 
hold in the same breath that it is a 'witness'. *When it has no 
consciousness at all (in other words, it is unconscious) how can 
it 'witness' anything at all and worse still, when there is 
objectively 'nothing real' to witness*

(iii) Also, all negatives are the opposites of positives and should 
have the characteristics of these opposites which are themselves 
positives. Otherwise, there can be no negatives at all. *So, the 
concept of "Nirguna Brahman" itself is Self-contradictory.
The illumination of a 'Negative bare being' is a mere euphemism for 
blurred vision*(Sri R. Kesava Iyengar)

(iv) The Upanishads lay down Bhakti (Devotion). This implies two 
entities that are real the lower one that offers devotion and the 
other, a higher one to which the devotion is directed. *Why would the 
scriptures prescribe Bhakti at all if there is only one real and the 
others are unreal and how can it expect a `nonentity' to take to 
devotion as enjoined by the Saastras?*

(v) The Vedas describe in elaborate detail the process of 
PancheekaraNam while describing the creation of the worlds. *When 
the "Nirguna Brahman" has no qualities creative or otherwise, no 
attributes, nothing to claim to be causative of anything, - how can 
it create the worlds as described in the Vedas?*

(vi) The Vedas declare Brahman as 'exalted and exalting'. How can a 
Nirvisesha Brahman be exalted since exaltation implies two entities 
of one that is exalted and the other being much lower than the 
exalted one (and perhaps requiring to be exalted). *When nothing else 
is there, where is the question of its being exalted and whom or what 
can it exalt? It is like asking one to stand in a line when one is 
alone and none else is there to stand next *

As per Troy Wilson ORGAN (p.28 in Hinduism - Its historical 
Development-Barron's Educational Series Inc. N. Y 1970-74t :
*"Every relationship have at least two relata, two things that 
partake of the relationship. If there are no two relata, there cannot 
be a relation"*

Having propounded the Nirvisesha Brahman which practically could thus 
do nothing, they had to resort to what is called a 'Saguna Brahman' 
to create, sustain, and destroy the world when due, having a divine 
body with the capacity to take 'AvatArs'. And, not willing to accept 
the supreme position of the "Saguna Brahman" they had to qualify 
the "Saguna Brahman" as subservient to their favorite "Nirguna 
Brahman" which alone they maintained was 'real'.

The only real thing was the creation of TWO (Dvaita) in Brahman 
Himself, demolishing in the process the ONE (Advaita) Brahman they 
sought to establish, for negating the existence of two entities of 
ParamAtma and JeevAtma!. 

Nowhere does Sruti hold two kinds of Brahman, like "Suddha Brahman" 
(the terminology is foreign to Upanishads) and an "Asuddha Brahman" 
In this context, we are left to guess which one of the two 
viz. "Saguna" or "Nirguna" is the "Suddham", the other 
being "Asuddham"!

"NIRAKARA" and "NIRAVAYAVA" BRAHMAN
Prof. NarayanAchArya:
"In Sri Bashyam 2-1-14, Bhagavad RamAnuja clearly explains how the 
SutrakAra holds that God *does* have a body, but that is very much 
unlike the soul's possessing one due to its earning of `karma' - sin 
and merit. For that matter, it is not the very idea of possessing a 
body that drives even the Jeeva to happiness or misery as a rule. 
Only if such body is the result of sin and merit it becomes a 
potential source of joy or misery. Otherwise, bodies taken of will, 
as in the state of emancipation, are all instruments of permanent 
bliss only as Sruti states: He possesses a single body, nay, three or 
multiple ones (sa ekadhA bhavathi, tridhA bhavathi- cha Chand.up. VII-
26)"
===============================================================
GRD 5: SECTION3(C) Concept of MAya Or Illusion - will follow.
==============================================================
2. "QUESTION BOX ANSWERS" Part 1
===============================================================
(1) HOW TO PERFORM SRADDHA WHEN WIFE OF THE KARTHA IS "OUT OF DOORS" 
(BAHISTAI) 
Question : Sri Ramanujam Raghavan 
Answer by: Sri D. Soundararajan Swami
==========================================
When the wife is "out of doors", she will not be available for 
apportioning rice (amindri) for offering to fire (agnisanthAnam). 
Also, it is not possible to perform ceremony with cooked food 
(annasrAddham) and the SAstras prohibit doing it by gifting rice, 
plantains, jaggery, colocosia (Seppan kizhangu), green dhall etc 
called "Sankalpa" or "Aama-srAddham" (nor can any of these be done on 
the 5th day after her ceremonial bath, as some hold). But, it can and 
must be done only with cooked food (annasrAddham) on the day of the 
next "thithi" 
(Vide page 53 of "KELvi- Badil" by Sri U.Ve. MahAvidwAn Melpakkam 
NarasimhAchAriar Swami published by Sri Nrisimhapriya trust, 1996
==============================================================
(2) DO THE VEDAS APPROVE OF SUICIDE?
Question: Sri Krishna Kalale
Answer by: Anbil Ramaswamy
==================================
There is no reference in the Vedas approving of suicide. Even 
abortion is prohibited as "Sisuhatya" and suicide definitely cannot 
carry any approval. On the other hand, suicide is discouraged as a 
means to end problems in this life. When Sri Sita wanted to commit 
suicide in AsoOa Vana, AnjanEya appeared before her with the happy 
tidings of Lord's arrival. Similarly, when Bharata was about to self 
immolate himself he appeared with the happy tidings again. Whether it 
is mundane or spiritual, one's problems can hope to be solved, if 
only one lives, not when one is dead. The only way out in any 
circumstance is to offer prayers to the Lord. Indeed," More things 
are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of" and where do we meet 
God except in prayer?
==============================================================
(3). IS THERE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR SRI RAMA'S ABANDONMENT OF SRI 
SITA WITHOUT A TRIAL?
Question: Sri Krishna Kalale.
{This question raised on26th December 2000 was answered by me on 2nd 
January 2001 based on the reply of H.H. Srimad ANDavan of 
PounDarikapuram Ashramam. The following answer is a supplement by Sri 
M.K. Ramaswamy Swamin, (Retd. Secretary, Govt. of India) He is giving 
a 2 part series in answer to this question. Here is the first part. 
The 2nd will appear as soon as it is received -- Editor}
========================================
"This is an important question. When Sri Rama took the decision to 
desert Sri Sita, was he acting like a God or was He acting like a man?
The answer is clear. He was acting as a human being. Throughout this 
AvatAr, He acted with this consciousness.(VI.120.11).

If Sri Rama was acting like a human being, how do we go about to 
understand Him? In inter-personal relationships, we try to under 
stand another person, his statements or actions by grappling with 
them with the aid of our intellect. Thus, we try to understand by 
(a) arriving at a conclusion or a judgment  
(b) treating the person with sympathy and 
(c) treating the person with empathy (the power of projecting one's 
personality into and so fully comprehending the object of 
contemplation)
(a) To arrive at a judgment would amount to a show of gumption where 
one had not been called upon to venture either to express or act.; 
(b) To sympathize would show, quite erroneously that somehow we are 
all superior with greater command of our faculties. 
(c) To empathize and stay empathized is, perhaps, what might be 
appropriate here.
But, even empathy might be inadequate.
Sri Aurobindo would say that AvatArs is a dual phenomenon of divinity 
and humanity. There are at least two instances where Sri Rama looked 
unmistakably like a divine conscious being, more like such a one than 
a "DasrAtmaja".
1. In BAlakhANDam, ParasurAma identified Him as the Supreme Param 
purusha, Sri NArAYaNa. He said words to such an effect: "akshayyam 
madhuhanthAram jAnAmi tvAm surEswaramtvayA tralOkhya nAthEna" 
(I.17.76.17 and 19) Sri Rama who was just 13 listened without moving 
a muscle. He neither accepted ParasurAma's words nor did He reject 
them. He was also not puzzled!
2. His granting "mOksha" to JaTAyu. That was no ordinary event. That 
was also from the man, which Sri Rama was! It is not within the power 
of great Kshatriyas, even as great as Rama to grant a life in Svarga. 
It must be noted that Sri Rama was not praying for JaTAyu's Svarga; 
He was actually dispatching him there (III.68.27.30)

Therefore, even if we empathized with Rama and proceeded on the basis 
that he was a manushya born in the manushya lOka (as said by Sri 
MahAVishNu Himself) "vatsyAmi mAnushE lOkE pAlayan prithveem 
imAm"(I.15.30), we cannot know Him completely. We would be clueless 
as to when He would act by resuming His contact with His divine 
consciousness. On the other hand, if we were to hold stubbornly to a 
premise that He was a divine being, we would remain clueless even 
then as to where was the divine door located and what went behind 
that door!

What this would mean is that we cannot treat Sri Rama, Srimad 
RAmAyaNam, their words, values and the incidents strictly in a 
terrestrial and temporal sense. Sri Rama and Srimad RAmAyaNam are for 
the spirit to explore. God is realized through experience, not 
through sermons, books and annotations. Similarly, for a true 
realization one should aim to internalize. Srimad RAmAyaNam is NOT 
meant to be "known" or "understood"; It has to be "realized". For 
this purpose, it has to be approached with that unique tool ? the 
indwelling consciousness.

God likes to reveal Himself; God likes to deliver Himself. But, for 
that to happen, the seeker has to be a believer and an aspirant. With 
the giving up of one's whole consciousness into the divine, one would 
be able to perceive God and the rationale behind His actions"

Sri M.K. Srinivasan Swamin adds-
"Though Sri Rama had said "I consider myself as a mere human" 
(AathmAnam mAnusham manyE), WE should not judge Him by human 
standards and apply human laws of jurisprudence. It is just like 
understanding quantum mechanics and the latest string theory (of 
Stephen Hawking) through the elementary popular Newton's laws of 
motion".
===============================================================
(4) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ASWAMEDHA AND RAJASUYA YAGAS?
Question: John Marshall / Jaya Tiirtha Charan Dasa 
Answer: Anbil Ramaswamy
=============================================
"ASWAMEDHA" means "horse Sacrifice". In Vedic times, it was performed 
by Kings who desired offspring. At the end of the yAga, the horse 
was killed with certain ceremonies. In the time of MahAbhAratha, it 
was performed only by kings. This implied that he who instituted it 
was a conqueror and king of kings. It was believed that a 100 such 
yAgas performed could help an ordinary mortal king to overthrow the 
throne of Indra and to become the ruler of the universe and sovereign 
of the gods. A horse of a particular color was consecrated and was 
turned loose to wander at will for one year. The King or his men 
followed the horse with a battalion and when the animal entered a 
foreign territory, the ruler thereof was bound either to fight or 
submit. If the one who instituted returned triumphantly after the one-
year period, the vanquished kings accompanied him as his 
tributaries; But, if he failed, he was disgraced and his pretensions 
exposed. At the end of the triumphant tour, the horse was sacrificed.
=================================
"RAJASUYA" was performed at the time of installation of a King, 
religious in nature but political in its operation, because it 
implied that he who instituted the sacrifice was a supreme lord, a 
king over kings and his tributary princes were required to be present 
at his coronation.
(Authority: "A Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and Religion, 
Geography and literature" by John Dowson Heritage Publishers, New 
Delhi,1992)
==============================================================
(5) "IDOL" OR "ICON"- WHICH IS CORRECT?
Question and Answer by: Sri Rami Sivan.
{In the series "Sri Ranga Vijayam", references were made as to how 
the ArchA vigraha of Lord Sri RanganAtha came into the hands of 
IkshvAghu dynasty, then on to VibheeshaNa and how it came to be 
consecrated in Srirangam. A western member of "Sri Ranga Sri" from 
Sydney, Australia was upset over the use of the word "idol" with 
reference to the "ArchA vigraha" of the Lord. Please read our reply 
and his further comments thereon and favor us with your feedback to 
Sri_Ranga_Sri@xxxx 
and NOT to the "yahoogroup" address. -- Editor}
==============================================
He wrote:-
"Dear Sir 
Adiyen dasanudasan 
I am a westerner who was given SamAsrayaNam by His Holiness Yatiraja 
Jiyar Swamigal of Sriperumbudur. Some years back I was appointed as 
AchArya of the Ten Sampradaya by His Holiness. Here in Sydney 
Australia we have established a branch of the Yatiraja Jiyar Matt 
with both Indian and western members, and are having regular 
programs, Bhagavad aradhanai, upanyasa and kAlakshEpams, utsavams 
etc. We have jokingly called ourselves "Metgalai" Sampradaya, because 
there are certain points of the Vadakalai Sam. which we consider as 
correct and some points of the Tengalai Same of which are more valid. 
The long -standing conflict between the two branches of the 
Sampradaya should be bridged, we feel, Swami Desikan was indeed one 
of the greatest luminaries that appeared post Bhashyakara, but 
Manavalamamuni was not without greatness and wisdom. We in Australia 
study the works of both the AchAryas with equal reverence. 

I have a great regard for your journal but there is one thing that 
disturbs me greatly being a westerner; - the use of the word IDOL. 
This is a horrible, pejorative term coined by missionaries to 
denigrate the practice of ArchA Aradhana - it is a term of 
colonialism, cultural oppression and religious imperialism that 
should never be used by us. The correct term to use is ICON, it is a 
neutral term in modern society and is also the name which the 
Catholics apply to their own ArchA.
Yours humbly
in the service of Srimannarayana and the prapannas. 
Sri Rama Ramanuja Acharya 
=================================================
Our Reply:
Dear Swamin:
I am so happy to learn about the unity efforts in Sydney and your 
multifaceted kainkaryams. I am also trying my best in this regard in 
the U.S.A.
You have observed-
"there is one thing that disturbs me greatly being a westerner; the 
use of the word IDOL. This is a horrible, pejorative term coined by 
missionaries to denigrate the practice of ArchA Aradhana - it is a 
term of colonialism, cultural oppression and religious imperialism 
that should never be used by us. The correct term to use is ICON, it 
is a neutral term in modern society and is also the name which the 
Catholics apply to their own ArchA".

I appreciate the spirit in which you have advised the use of the 
word "Icon" in the place of "Idol". As per the standard dictionaries, 
both the words are synonymous and nothing pejorative about the 
word "idol" (Vide "Roget's Thesaurus of English words and phrases" 
pages 940-941)
The meanings of the word "Idol" are as follows: 
Image, Exceller, Desired object, Person of repute, Loved one, 
Favorite, Good man, God, etc.
The meanings of the word "Icon" are as follows:
Copy, Image, Picture, Ritual object etc.
You may kindly review with reference to the above and if you still 
feel that "Idol" may not be used, please feel free to inform me.
==================================================
His further Comments:
Dear Anbil 
Adiyen Dasanudasan!
Thank you very much for replying to me in spite of your busy schedule.
I refer to your dictionary definitions. The use of language is not 
only according to the literal dictionary definitions - but also 
culturally based. 

I know that in India alone it is very common for Hindus to refer to 
Archas as Idols. In the west the same Archas in churches and 
religious establishments are never referred to as idols but as icons. 
So although this usage is common amongst Hindus and perfectly 
acceptable - to westerners this is a very negative term used to 
denigrate, never to appreciate. So in my teaching I have always found 
it useful to use the culturally based language of the masses. I teach 
many westerners and whenever they hear this word idol they cringe. 

If you read the bible you will find this term used pejoratively 
against the gods of the pagan masses and it states quite clearly the 
God of the bible hates idol worship and idolaters. So, Western 
culture is informed by biblical ideas and concepts and hence the 
discomfort with this term. 

If your magazine and upadeshams are directed only at expatriate 
Srivaishnavas - there is no problem and my well-intentioned remarks 
are merely superfluous but if you anticipate reaching out to western 
readers and potential prapannas - then I think you should consider 
changing terms. For your interest I am including some quotes from the 
Bible.
Thank you for your time 
Dasanudasan RamAnuja Dasan
==============================================================
IDOLS AND THE BIBLE:
Jehovah¹s views on idol worship
Ex 20:3-5 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of 
anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters 
below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the 
LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin 
of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate 
me,

Ex.17:7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat 
idols to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting 
ordinance for them and for the generations to come.'

Eze 23:49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and you 
shall bear the sins of your idols: and you shall know that I [am] the 
Lord GOD.

Ex 20:23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for 
yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.

Ex 23:24 Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow 
their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones 
to pieces.

Ex 32:31 So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great 
sin these people have committed! They have made themselves idols of 
gold.

De 32:16 They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered 
him with their detestable idols.

As you can see from the foregoing the term IDOL always has negative 
associations in the Judeo-Christian culture.

Jehovah¹s views on other religious groups (Hindus, Buddhists, jains 
etc)

Ex 23:33 Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to 
sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a 
snare to you."

Ex 34:15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the 
land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice 
to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.

De 7:16 You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over 
to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, 
for that will be a snare to you.

De 7:25 The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not 
covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, 
or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the LORD your 
God.

De 12:2 Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains and 
on the hills and under every spreading tree where the nations you are 
dispossessing worship their gods.

De 12:3 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn 
their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and 
wipe out their names from those places.

Jos 24:23 "Now then," said Joshua, "throw away the foreign gods that 
are among you and yield your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel."

1Sa 15:23 For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and 
stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry.

1Co 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Jehovah on Non Judeo/Christian spiritual masters (Hindu, Buddhist, 
Jain etc.)
De 18:20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I 
have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of 
other gods, must be put to death."

Jehovah¹s views on Conversion to another religion 
De 13:6 -11 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or 
the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, 
saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor 
your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near 
or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him 
or listen to him. 

Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly 
put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to 
death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, 
because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought 
you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will 
hear and be afraid, and no-one among you will do such an evil thing 
again.

12-16 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God 
is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and 
have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and 
worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must enquire, 
probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has 
been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you 
must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it 
completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder 
of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn 
the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD 
your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

Ga 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, 
strife, seditions, heresies,
======================================================================
More Questions and Answers will follow in Part 2
======================================================================
3. "KNOW THIS ACHARYA"- 
MahAvidwAn MADURANTAKAM Tirumalai EechambADi 
Veera RAghava MahA Desikan SwAmi (VikAri -Masi- AviTTam)
Anbil Ramaswamy
=====================================================
He was born on 28th February 1900 in VasishTa KouNDinya GOtram. You 
will remember our celebrating his Centenary on 4th March 2000. 

Born in the family entitled to "first water" (agra-theertham) at the 
temple of "YEri kAtharAman" at MadurAnthakam, he obtained proficiency 
in Vedas and Prabandams through Adhyayanam, SAstrAbhyAsam etc. He 
learned `PrAmANya vAdam" under the great "Swachchandham SwAmi", an 
authority in "NyAya SAstra" and came out in flying colors in the very 
first attempt at the Colleges at PudukkoTTai and Tiruvananthapuram. 

He did kAlakshEpams in Ubhaya VedAntham and Bhara-samarpaNam at the 
feet of the great AchArya known as "GaruDapuram SwAmi". He worked as 
the Head of Department of NyAya at TiruvaiyAru College..

He was honored with several titles like "NyAyavisishTAdvaita 
SirOmaNi", "Tharka Rathnam" (AyOdhya Sabha), "NyAya VedAnta kEsari" 
(Tirupathi Sabha), and "Desika Darsana RatnAkaram" (Madurai Sabha).
His works:
1. NyAya Parisuddhi VivaraNam
2. VyAkhyAtraya ParitrANam
3. GitA VyAkhyAnam
4. JitantA VyAkhyAnam
5. SampraDaya SudhA
6. RakshA Vimarsam
7. PoorvAchArya Darsanam
8. TirumaDal VivaraNam
9. Essays in bot languages (Sanskrit and Tamil) running to thousands 
of pages
10. Several poems on SampradAya ( Not come out in print)
===============================================================



















[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