Dear Anand Prabhu, Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. Thank you for your mail. We shall go on disagreeing with each other. There would be no end to it. You will not agree with me and I will not agree with you. That has already happened once and now we see it happen once more. With all due courtesy, I must say very frankly that I am not in the least claiming that I am representing Sri Vaishnavism necessarily. This is a list for Sri Vaishnavism. I am aware of this. But are we to come here as mindless zombies just to facilitate this designation of the list ? We are individuals and we have imbibed certain ideals and conclusions in our course of life. When we come here, we come to understand Sri Vaishnavism in the light of what we have known and learnt. As such, I have merely indicated what I understand. I have never claimed any officialdom to my words. Furthermore, differences of opinion are sometimes over-emphasised and sometimes under-emphasised depending on the views of the writer. Not all Sri Vaishnavas have protested to my writings. In fact, many have acclaimed it as well. Therefore, this is something that you have to settle with the other Sri Vaishnavas. Just as in the Gaudiya Sampradaya, in the Sri Vaishnava line also, there are disagreements even amongst scholars over certain issues. Therefore please do not be so sure that all that you say is in itself an official and full representation of Sri Vaishnavism as accepted by all of its followers. I have never claimed that I am representing Sripad Ramanujacharya. A Gaudiya Vaishnava has due respect for all Vaishnava Acharyas although in terms of siddhanta, he knows their positions and how they all fit in within the system of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.You may of course argue otherwise and put forth your arguments. I may then counter and this can go on with no end in sight. Controversies are there everywhere, including the Gaudiya, Sri and Madhva lines. But I have merely presented what I have understood. I have not in the least even mentioned that this is Gaudiya Vaishnavism and that is Sri, etc. I have presented as I understand. I am an individual and I carry with me my own convictions when I approach the topics at hand here. That is all. The central point of all Vaishnava Sampradayas, no matter what they are, is the transcendental personal feature of the Lord. That is not denied. As such, I am finding commonality here. You may wish to highlight technical differences, etc. But that is your choice and this is mine. You may with to show that I am wrong as much I can also prove otherwise. It is not difficult to engage in vithandaavaadham. But I am the least interested in this just as you have indicated your lack of time for this purpose. Therefore I shall continue with my postings and if you feel you have something to contribute then you please make that. I have no qualms. But I would beg you not to attempt to monopolise and stifle the intellectual development of this list by claiming Sri Vaishnava siddhantic monopoly for yourself. I have merely indicated my understanding on this matter. Therefore, kindly refrain from strawman arguments thrusting me with the guilt of misrepresenting your sampradaya when I never even claimed as such. If indeed this list is only for SVs, then keep it as a closed forum, not an open one. If it is open, many of us will carry with our sampradayic affiliations to the understanding of SVm and you have to digest this fact. You have pointed out that there is a difference between a picture of the Lord and a deity of the Lord that has undergone prathishta. But pray tell me, will a pure devotee make a difference between one manner in which the Lord is manifest and another ? It is certainly true that the recommendation is for us to worship the Lord in the properly consecrated forms and that these require higher standards than the pictures. But I am here talking about the perfectional stage. In that state which is the final ideal, a pure devotee will see the Lord wherever He is manifest and will not relegate that consideration to that of external ritual alone. I think that would suffice for now. If you wish to argue along technical terms, then you are most welcome but it will not achieve anything fruitful because each of our sampradaayic understanding of each and every technical term may have differences because there are differences in the epistemologies of Sri Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism, albeit to a slight extent. Of course, even in this, you may differ, feeling that there are very significant differences. To this, my answer would be simple - difference and similarity are two views of a bottle. You may see the bottle as half empty but I may see it as half full. Hare Krishna ! Your servant, R. Jai Simman Singapore
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |